Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 12: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:50, 12 May 2019

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 11 May	13 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Asian Age (Bangladesh)

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

Non-notable newspaper. The cited sources are a brief story about their mobile website being unavailable for a few days, and a mention in a government list of newspaper circulations (where nominal figures for the 3rd and 10th highest circulation differ by under 5%).

The existence of the unrelated The Asian Age, a larger Indian newspaper edited by MJ Akbar, complicates searches. Ones of the usual Google types, EBSCO, JSTOR, and ProQuest, including searches of Bengali sources, found a couple threats of legal action against reporters in the normal course of business,[1][2] a couple recaps of seminars organized by the paper,[3][4], and various passing mentions.

As illuminating is where The Asian Age is not mentioned: the Encyclopedia of International Media and Communications, the ABYZ Bangladesh Newspapers and News Media Guide, Willings Press Guide, or Info as Aid's Bangladesh: Media and Telecoms Landscape Guide. Does not meet WP:NMEDIA. Worldbruce (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the article looks like as a advertisement (NPOV). The Article don't have any useful explanation or introduction about the main subject.Forest90 (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fail passes WP:GNG-MA Javadi (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neelanjana Ray

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

No real notably as far as I can see beyond being a contestant (not even a winner) on a TV talent show. Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This young singer who didn't even win a talent show doesn't meet WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Albeit she seems to be semi-known in the internet, but at least I personally reckon she doesn't seem to be notable enough to have an independent article; on the other hand, --at least based on my research-- seemingly she has not won in famous scenes, either. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - doesn't meet NMUSIC or GNG, plus image is obvious screen capture with bogus permission claim == copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravensfire (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a G5 of Bhanwar singh vaish (talk · contribs) but given the discussion that's already taken place it's useful to have G4 available too. Cabayi (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ishita Vishvakarma

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

Not really seeing any notability beyond winning one TV taken show. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She only won one show. This article does not meet WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Daask (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 9 as winning a major music competition, the longest running Indian television singing competition and as confirmed in reliable sources.A national televised competition should not be belittled Atlantic306 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure a TV talent show would count as a major music competition.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but redirect to Sa Re Ga Ma Pa 2018. WP:BLP1E as this is all they've done at this point. I see where Atlantic306 is coming from, but I don't think that's the type of competition intended for that criteria. I think that's more for the formal, rigorous competitions with formal judging, not TV shows with public voting. Ravensfire (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And on top of it, Midbro was blocked as a sockpuppet. Ravensfire (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a G5 of Bhanwar singh vaish (talk · contribs) but given the discussion that's already taken place it's useful to have G4 available too. Cabayi (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlockar

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

Non notable application. Created by a single use editor who has been using this page more as a means of a personal publicity. No references from reliable sources that talk about the app Jupitus Smart 17:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This application does not meet the standards of WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. (There is one article at Digit.in, but the site is not reliable, as it doesn't disclose anything about its operations.) The company's "Press" page is broken. The sentence "App never got much traction mostly of the fact that people didn't really cared about their lock screen as much as to install a third party app that basically floods their lock screen with news and ads." is self-explanatory. — Newslinger talk 05:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Newslinger. Daask (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pallikal Kavu

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

Non-notable temple. Found no reliable sources other than Google books, in the Pilgrimage to Temple Heritage 2015 and Pilgrimage to Temple Heritage 2017 books. Those Google books sources, however, are not substantial enough to warrant an article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree there’s not much in English. However I found this which suggests there many be wider press coverage in Malayalam. I’ll ping Wikiproject Kerala editors to ask. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, there are no references to this topic, second, it doesn't meet WP:GNG, and finally, it seems like an advertisement. Syndicater (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NBUILD says that to be notable, buildings "require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." - as an alternative to deletion, could Redirect to List of Hindu temples in India - Epinoia (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel W. Meshack

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

BLP short of independent references. Lots of his own writing and his college. Rathfelder (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV. I searched very thoroughly via DuckDuckGo and Google Scholar, and found only [5]. The article includes several cited facts only loosely connected to Meshack, inclining me to believe that the article's author knew that actual references were insufficient. Daask (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenai (band)

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

Does not appear to be a particularly notable band, article has never had any sourcing despite being present for nearly a decade, entire article appears to be original research, possibly written by a member or friend. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Classic case of WP:YAMB, and the two EPs and one album are literally their entire recorded output, as they split right after the album's release. No reliable sources found, and none likely to appear, considering they've been defunct for almost a decade. Richard3120 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't meet WP:GNG, there are no references, and they're extremely inactive. Syndicater (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richard3120. Daask (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Flare

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

I fail to see how the subject is notable. Couldn't find any RS to support any of the given statements. Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO Ceethekreator (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Happy for someone else to close this.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig and Hoppingalong from the old AFD discussion. Regrettably, the sources they found were never added to the article. Daask (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the above references from the previous AFD have been added to the article by Daask so that it is clear that the subject passes WP:BASIC with significant coverage in reliable sources such as Spin, CMJ and reliable books, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep. (non-admin closure) THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virahya Pattarachokchai

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

Reason, this person is notable. Evrdkmkm (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evrdkmkm What's your reasoning for nominating this for deletion? Winners of major reality competitions are sometimes notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 it's not major reality competition, winner it's not means she/her work will famous, a lot of jobs or everyone in Thailand will know her, so other famous thai actor/actress who're famous than her they're still don't have thai/eng wiki's page. anyway pls. check on her Thai article, Thai admin also nominated her page for notable, thanks.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No indication she won the main national beauty pageant. Winning some more local competitions is not sufficient, requires otherwise passing NBIO with other sources. I can't read Thai sources, but the article doesn't suggest there would be anything to cover outside the usual press releases/bio blurb content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG as winner of major Thai reality television modelling competition The Face Thailand. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she is notable. The Face Thailand is not a main national beauty pageant like Mis Universe Thailand or Miss Thaiand World that the winner have to represent Thailand, so it's also not a major Thai reality tv. show, it's just viral on Thai social and too poor rating, not famous or popular in real life. and other thai models winner from a big Thai model contest caled Thai Supermodel Contest or Thai models who're working with internation agentcy in oeversea and famous than her they also dont have any page on wiki eng. if they're not famous like a Thai superstar or really welknow by thier famous film/soap opera/series on Thai tv. /so why Thai Admin nominated her for deletion as notable? Thai wiki and Eng wiki didnt under the same rules?.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The above comment probably misunderstood the meaning of the word notable, and meant the opposite. I've removed extra bold text. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also Evrdkmkm is voting here on their own nomination. Mccapra (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of the four sources listed, one is a blog (unreliable source), two are about the Face Thailand contest, and one is about Gina, but Post Today is not a significant source; therefore, does not meet WP:BASIC, has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - WP:ANYBIO says, "has received a well-known and significant award," the significance of Face Thailand is questionable - does not meet WP:NMODEL, "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions" - this looks like a promotional bio - overall, does not meet the notability criteria and therefore delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virahya Pattarachokchai
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thai-language sources include interviews with Hamburger magazine[6][7][8], Post Today newspaper's website[9], Manager Online[10], and Lips magazine[11]. Most mainstream news coverage is about her winning season 4 of The Face Thailand (Thairath[12], Kom Chad Luek[13], Krungthep Thurakij[14], Khaosod[15], Praew magazine[16], Sudsapda magazine[17]). Others are various online variety news sites and celebrity websites (Dara Daily[18], Kapook[19][20], Great Star Digital[21]). I think together these constitute enough coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She definitely meets WP:GNG and she's won major awards and she also has several achievements. Although the references are not that great, they are still better references. Syndicater (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul 012 Daask (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 speedy delete. G3 Blatant hoax: no sources by Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) 94rain ^Talk 13:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secruni

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

As I stated when I PRODed this article: "Wholly unsourced article. Google searches for "Secruni," "Secruni religion," "Secruni aura," and other permutations show no results. Article is entirely general statements, no specifics of any sort. It also notes that this is a small group about whom virtually nothing is known, so likely this does not even meet WP:GNG. At best this should be moved to DRAFT until it can be fleshed out/sourced. Link to this article on Aura_(paranormal) has been removed until it can be improved." Page's creator removed PROD and stated on its talk page that while there are no published sources or verifiable info he himself has spoken directly to "experts" and this informatiopn is from them. Clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria. Applying to AfD due to creator's dispute. JamesG5 (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no references about them, it fails to meet WP:GNG, and even the article admits that there's very little information about them. Syndicater (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG and I think it even meets a Speedy delete A7 with no credible claim of significance. The article itself admitted that it is not notable. --94rain ^Talk 02:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the creator's reaction to my PRODing it I thought it wise to bring it to AfD both to be certain on cinsensus and to establish a record for later if it's recreated. JamesG5 (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus. A possible merge or move elsewhere can be discussed on the article talk page. Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rockwood Village, Mississauga

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

This is a run-of-the-mill subdivision. It is not listed among the neighbourhoods of Mississauga by the city's own definition - see this for a list of neighbourhoods recognized by the city. Note that all references are about historical areas in Mississauga unrelated to this subdivision. Mind matrix 16:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that Wikipedia should list the information as it isn’t available anywhere else. Say for example someone is looking to purchase a home in this neighborhood. Where else are they going to find any history or information except on Wikipedia. The Real Estate folks use “Rathwood”, but then say desirable Rockwood Village. I do genealogy research, and someone may be interested that I voted in a Rockwood polling station 100 years from now.

I’m interested in local history, just as someone in Russia or China may be interested in their local history.

I just had a look at the City of Mississauga document. One of the 22 “Character Neighbourhoods” is Rathwood. The map in section 16.21 for “Rathwood” includes Rockwood Village (the section of Rathwood east of Dixie). I didn’t know that Rockwood Village is a part of Rathwood. There isn’t an article on Rathwood on Wikipedia. Maybe you can create a Rathwood article and include the “Rockwood Village” information there. I don’t think the area west of Dixie has a name, other that Rathwood. There is a Rockwood Village Homeowners Association http://www.rockwoodvillage.ca/ but I can’t find a Rathwood Homeowners Association.

I don’t have any vested interest in Rockwood except that I live in this “run-of-the-mill” neighborhood. Do what you want. I haven’t contributed to Wikipedia in some time as I seem to run afoul of Wikipedia’s administrators.Bzaoral , talk 18:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bzaoral: Wikipedia should list the information as it isn’t available anywhere else—good sign that the article does not meet WP:N or WP:V, which usually require reliable, published sources for information. However, it looks like the content could be profitably moved to this other wiki, where home-buyers could find it. Zerach (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Toronto township. The thought of Wikipedia listing information that isn't available anywhere else, while understandable, runs directly against the verifiability policy, and is not a legitimate argument per WP:USEFUL. It doesn't appear that this area has legal recognition so isn't a part of WP:GEOLAND. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GEOLAND. Most of this page is sourced, and where not, is clearly sourceable. The residents association section does not have a citation, but the information could be cited to their own website, which also contains some historical information. SpinningSpark 22:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article about Burnhamthorpe (a recognized official city neighbourhood) would likely be appropriate, as long as it was reliably sourced, and could include a bit of information about this subdivision — but WP:GEOLAND only guarantees notability to the city of Mississauga itself, while neighbourhoods or subdivisions within the city are eligible for their own standalone articles only if they can be well-referenced to enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG. The residents association's own self-published website about itself is not a reliable or notability-supporting source, either — it's a directly affiliated organization, not an independent or notability-assisting media outlet. And the references present in the article aren't helping either: it's referenced to more primary sources, not any evidence of notability-boosting reliable source coverage. Even the three "Kathleen A. Hicks" citations are to documents published by the Mississauga Public Library, not to real media, and are not about Rockwood Village either, but other parts of Mississauga. And no, it isn't our job to facilitate the publication or retention of information unpublished or unavailable anywhere else, either: we're an encyclopedia, not a free web host, so our job is not to help undercovered topics create media visibility they don't already have. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although perhaps with a "move" also. Sounds like move to "Rathwood, Mississauga" (currently a redlink) and further development fixes the situation. Rathwood is an official neighborhood, and can cover Rockwood Village within it. "Rathwood NHD" has or is forecasted to have populations of 28,900; 29,300; 29,800 in various years, per this source. It is a populated place, and there are lots more sources available esp. when you expand to searching about Rathwood, Mississauga. Note that Mississauga#Neighbourhoods/areas contains a list of neighborhoods including Rathwood, many of which have bluelink linked articles.

Further, people, we don't benefit from bashing a positive contributing editor like Bzaoral. Not friendly or helpful to destroy their work, and they have legitimate point that this deserves coverage, whether or not they have perfectly fit it into Wikipedia's arbitrary structures/guidelines/policies. Dont bite newbies (not sure if they are newbie or not), don't be a jerk, anyhow. And we are obligated to search for wp:ATD Alternatives to Deletion. --Doncram (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete The larger official neighborhood it's in may be notable (should there be enough content to split from Mississauga), but the sources don't establish notability for a housing development with a homeowner's association; they're mainly about the area generally without substantive coverage of the subdivision. Reywas92^Talk 20:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demian Dressler

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

Fails GNG and Artist. All the awards and exhibitions are in known vanity publications or exhibitions. Neither of the claims to be in collections are verifiable, nor are the institutions notable. The book has never been reviewed. In the organization for which he claims to be a distinguished lecture does not seem to exist anymore. Theredproject (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:ARTIST. Also, the references violate WP:NOPRIMARY, the article appears to have a close connection to this person, and the references are unreliable. Syndicater (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PRIMARY-sourced PROMO for the professional contemporary artist,[1] veterinary surgeon and clinician,[2] lecturer,[3] and published author.[4] for sheer lack of WP:RS. Note, for example, that the Southern Nevada Museum of Fine Art page was redirected to a shopping/entertainment complex and that it, the Southern Nevada Museum of Fine Art has been renamed Metropolitan Gallery and appears to be a commercial venture. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Daask (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Art Tour International is a pay-to-play promotional organization. The article is just puffery and promotion, without true in-depth RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thabaton 3

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

No evidence of any notability. No sources. Created by copying the page of the previous film in the sequence (including the lack of citations template from 2016). The film is not yet in existence so this is, at best, crystal ball gazing. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I put this on the one for Thabaton 2, but same comment-Comment-There isn't even a page for Thabaton-which I have yet to find any reliable sources for as well. Do these films even exist?? With that Delete. Wgolf (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic fails WP:GNG and there are literally no references. Syndicater (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Daask (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON at least, it's a copy and paste from the previous film because there is little information about it at this stage. If it does get reliable sources coverage such as reviews when it is released it can be recreated at that time without prejudice, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thabaton 2

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

No evidence of any notability. Has ben tagged as lacking sources since 2016 . Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-There isn't even a page for Thabaton-which I have yet to find any reliable sources for as well. Do these films even exist?? With that Delete. Wgolf (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic fails WP:GNG and there are literally no references. Syndicater (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Daask (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Agrawal

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

Seems to fail WP:NBIO. WP:INTERVIEW in Financial Times, a few local-level (city, province) low reach articles, some of which may be rewritten press releases or paid-for hack pieces, some mentions in passing... for more red flags: article has been created and is maintained by WP:SPA, and is a growing repository of mergers from his companies that tend to fail their own AfDs or are just speedy deleted - see logs for RationalFX, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xendpay. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and violates WP:NOPRIMARY. Syndicater (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 speedy keep. I withdraw the nomination. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pawtucketville

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

A small neighbourhood is only notable if "they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes" (per WP:NPLACE). Pawtucketville has only 29,561 inhabitants (see here), and appears to fall under the definition of small suburb. It does not consist of a "legally separate [municipality] or [commune]". The neighbourhood is already discussed at Lowell, Massachusetts, and thus can be deleted as a merge is unnecessary. MrClog (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NPLACE is not a notability guideline. Rather, it is a documentation of common AfD outcomes. It does not prescribe that outcome, that's just what has often happened in the past. Each case is treated on its own merits. Besides which, the nom has cherrypicked what it actually says. It certainly does not proscribe unincorporated communities – point #4 says Larger neighborhoods are usually kept if their names are found to have verifiable widespread usage. This article contains a lot of referenced historical material that is not found in the Lowell article, so the idea that this could be deleted without losing information is disingenuous. If I have read the history of the place correctly, Pawtucketville was a separate community until 1874 when it was annexed by Lowell. Its founding actually predates Lowell, so it was probably an incorporated settlement up to that time and notability is not temporary. SpinningSpark 15:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable as a separate community before 1874, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. Regardless of how one interprets NPLACE, it was a separate community pre-1874 and thus gets its own notability per Roxbury et al. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons already stated. Swampyank (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasons already said. Syndicater (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of UIL track and field records

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. LISTN describes notability for these sorts of lists as "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The sources for this rely on one, related website which fails per WP:ROUTINE. My WP:BEFORE search showed as much. There might be local coverage of individual races, but this subject isn't notable, nor does it list notable subjects. Without broader reportage, GNG cannot apply. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Also this is a massive WP:NOR fail. These aren't a collection of records, they're a list of links to previous T&F meets where no faster time could be found - all the references refers to content from a single website. I just clicked on an 800m record link and the competitors name isn't even there, so there is a considerable amount of verification fails as well. Ajf773 (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG and violates WP:NOR. Syndicater (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Fiifi Neizer

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

Out of the sources and external links on the page, only one appears to mention the subject by name, and that is just listing him amongst the show's contestants. (Note - the studentceosummitt website appears to be down, but archived here, just appears to be a personal resume). Searched for better sources, but drew a blank. Without sourcing, seems to fail WP:BASIC. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic fails WP:GNG, as this person only has 2 awards. Also, the article seems like an advertisement and the author seems closely connected to this person. Syndicater (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not a question of how many awards he has won but whether the awards are notable such as a national acting award like an Oscar or similar awards from other countries, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)
Delete per nom. I can't find any reliable sources that confirms notability.Tamsier (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as none of his main productions has a wikipedia article so there is no indication of whether they are notable productions so this is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. If his productions are given articles that prove notability then his article could be recreated without prejudice, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shivajith Padmanabhan

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

Could not fulfill WP:NARTIST and WP:ANYBIO another case of WP:TOOSOON ? QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 13:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 13:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 13:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST - minor role in 2-3 movies, no in-depth coverage. WP:TOOSOON at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and only has minor roles in 3 movies. Syndicater (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The stage name used was Shivajith Nambiar and then recently changed to Shivajith Padmanabhan, which is the reason why there is a lack of coverage. The old name has a lot of coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbangalore (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was one of the lead in movie 'Veeram' by Jayaraj(Known for getting Oscar nomination for its title music) and then did a notifiable character in Ranam by Nirmal Sahadev. In his upcoming movie 'Kalki', he is playing the lead villain role. He is quite popular in Malayalm film industry with his old name 'Shivajith Nambiar. He changed his name during a public event in Kerala - https://malayalam.oneindia.com/news/kerala/veeram-actor-sivajith-removed-surname-from-his-name-166385.html Wowrahulraghav123 (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage under his former name and one of his film roles is a major leading role Atlantic306 (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LetterWise

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

Complete WP:GNG fail. All the sources are either primary, or, if secondary, not independent, and I can't find any reliable sources that discuss it independently. SportingFlyer T·C 12:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I considered AfDing this myself, but then I found a few mentions in academic works. Such as the one I've added a few days ago. Can the nom explain how it is a primary or not independent? Well, I admit it is likely from the people who patented it, but a primary academic work is I think generally seen as somewhat reliable? Through it's a conference, not a paper, but in computer science, those are relatively common.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated, the article consisted of a single academic paper written by the authors of the software (primary, not independent - I've seen a few academic papers written by the academics who wrote the software recently, and that does not convey notability on the software they wrote), the software patent (primary, not independent), and three links to the company that wrote the software's web site. That paper has been cited a few times, but considering this is commercial software and not say an academic profile under WP:NPROF, I'm not going to withdraw the nomination. SportingFlyer T·C 00:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It perhaps should be noted on record that my best understanding is Scott MacKenzie the first named on the paper was a prolific writer on human-computer interaction and as far as I am aware was not not an employee of the company (but there may have been a relationship). I am minded his purpose may have been to give independent scrutiny of the effectiveness of LetterWise but I have no knowlegde whatsoever of the extent of his independence or otherwise to Eatoni or LetterWise.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and fails seems like an advertisement. Syndicater (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:* Delete: Not a sporting event, pop star, video game etc. Put it out of its misry quickly. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC) I ask myself is this an unethical comment?[reply]
Weak Delete - Does not satisfy software notability. Contains promotional language. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Dorcas Lane ... My one weakness is ... that I naturally ignore sales pitch language. Well at least I think I do. If the wordwise entry makes things worse feel free to say so and back it out. The article has received no love whatsoever. Reading about Letterwise/Wordwise there was the significant MacKenzie/Kober/Smith3/Jones/Skepner paper "LetterWise: Prefix-based Disambiguation for Mobile Text Input" which is quite often cited by other research. Efforts to market it for Mobile(cell) phones seem to have failed with T9/Mulit-tap etc retaining the market referred to in More power to the thumb Economist 22 june 2002 p11 & 9783039114511 pp86.87. However there was some traction in DECT/cordless and Iridium satellite phones probably due to memory. Eatoni got into a massive lawsuit with RIM(Blackberry) following another one and a make up before that. More recently Eatoni seems to have continued with some phone apps and multiple language stuff and [22] is interesting but not sure how much is egged. Most of the isn't in the article. I might try tweaking the toning the apparent usage a bit ... if I make things worse revert it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Done ... knowing me not perfect but have highlighted where claims were being made.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Now

Not done as assessed as spam below. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete — not sure if this is notable or not, but the article as written is just spam. Vectro (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vectro ... I have had no option but to revert my contributions to the LetterWise article as they are obviously not helping and it is inappropriate for me to leave them in place with your assessment. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*I've a review. I can't be sure just spam is incorrect. In fact it is probably an incorrect statement. I think I had identified and moderated over-egged claims. While I can see you are not WP:NOTHERE, you does useful contributions to e.g. WP:TEA and WP:NOTNOTHERE allows peoples to go round simply nominating and contributing to WP:APD I'm reasonably sure a good mix between the two isn't particularly healthly. I note you are unclear about the notability and also aware WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP so perhaps a despamming pass is necessary at some point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source Scott MacKenzie is not critical but Frehner, Wigdor/Balakrishnan, Isokoski, Alavi have merit (I think one or two of those are passing only from memory but have independence); from the Eatomi/RIM suings of the 2000s we have the references under robert above, as also we have the reference for the N'Ko script language use. So we have a fair bit around one way and another. The MacKenzie paper is a Goto with a lot of citations but the majority of those will be passing mentions.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Actually RC will be relatively good judge if I've eased the promotional language. Where I added Multi-tap to the example it is I feel quite a nice example however the word sirs shows Letterwise in a more favourable light compared to how mama would show Multitap to its best advantage. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The LetterWise article has undergone further improvement over the past few days with additional references added some of which I believe sate WP:RS and pragmatically I would now find it hard to believe any lack of notability claim against the article as it now stands would succeed. I proffer that most promotional claims made in the article have been eliminated, qualified or moderated however my deepening scrutiny suggest some may persist (though they are now not serious in the overall context of the article). For that reason particularly I am using an under construction while scrutiny, refinement and improvement of the article continues as a background task. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

"More power to the thumb". The Economist. 2002-06-20. Archived from the original on 2019-05-20. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Lettice, John (2002-05-27). "SMS, word entry killer app goes hunting for Nokia". The Register. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
MacKenzie, I. Scott (2002). "KSPC (Keystrokes per Character) as a Characteristic of Text Entry Techniques". In Paternò, Fabio (ed.). Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices: 4th International Symposium, Mobile HCI 2002, Pisa, Italy, September 18–20, 2002 Proceedings. Berlin: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 203. ISBN 3-540-44189-1. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Olsen Jr., Dan R. (2009). Lee, Marie (ed.). Building Interactive Systems: Principles for Human-Computer Interaction. Boston: Cengage. p. 368. ISBN 978-1-4239-0248-5. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Mooney, Elizabeth V. (2001-01-15). "Eatoni taps into text-entry solutions market". Radio Communications Report. 29 (3). Crain Communications.

Sources with quotes

"More power to the thumb". The Economist. 2002-06-20. Archived from the original on 2019-05-20. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
The article notes:
Eatoni Ergonomics, a small company based in New York, has developed a rival predictive-text technology called LetterWise which, it claims, is far superior to T9. Unlike T9, it is not based on a dictionary, but on a series of tiny rules that enable it to predict, given what has already been typed, which letter the user is most likely to want next. For example, “Q” is most often followed by “U”. Of the three letters “MNO”, words most commonly start with “O”. The letters “ST” are most often followed by a vowel. And so on. Like T9, LetterWise has a special key, used to step through possible letters when it guesses wrong.
It may not sound like a great leap forward, but it works well. Unlike T9, LetterWise can be used to type proper names, addresses and Internet locations. It is simple to learn, and speeds of 38 words per minute (wpm) are possible, compared with 23 wpm for T9 and 20 wpm for multitap, says Howard Gutowitz, Eatoni's boss.
LetterWise has benefits for phone makers as well as users. Being based on rules, not a dictionary, it occupies only three kilobytes of memory; T9 needs as much as 100 kilobytes. Many phones contain dictionaries for up to 20 languages, so this saving can be multiplied several times over. For Asian languages, the savings are even greater. And since mobile phones typically have only 2,048 kilobytes of memory, this leaves more room for games and other features. LetterWise's small size also makes it feasible for use in short-range cordless phones, which typically have no more than 128 kilobytes of memory.
Yet despite all these advantages, LetterWise has failed to take off. Mobile-phone makers are reluctant to break ranks and defect from T9, says Mr Gutowitz. But he has a plan. LetterWise has been licensed to Philips, Siemens and Panasonic who, together, account for more than half the European market in cordless phones. Over the next few months, it will become possible to send text messages from fixed-line phones as well as mobile ones, and those phones will have LetterWise built in. Mr Gutowitz hopes this will enable the technology to reach a wide audience, and encourage mobile-phone makers to include it in their handsets, too. A deal with one mobile firm, he says, is already on the cards.
Lettice, John (2002-05-27). "SMS, word entry killer app goes hunting for Nokia". The Register. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
The article notes:
How does it work? Both products use a standard mobile phone layout keyboard, so needn't change form factor at all, although the keys will need to be appropriately labelled. Letterwise is a predictive text entry system, and Wordwise is a more advanced product more likely to appeal to touch typists, and capable of greater speed.
You can get a better handle on how they work if you understand what they're not. So, although Letterwise feels similar to the multitap systems common on mobile phones, where you press the key repeatedly in order to get the correct letter, Letterwise takes a stab at guessing the letter that should come next. So it'll kick off a word with the most common letter obtained via the key you press, and get more accurate as the word continues. If it gets the letter wrong (most commonly at the start of the word), then you countermand it by pressing the designated 'Eatoni' key, which The Register feels should be labelled the Nope key, but which currently isn't.
What's happening here is that Eatoni is using predictive smarts, whereas multitap is simply using brute force. Your brute force, phone manufacturer's cost saving. Dictionary-based systems such as T9 are the more upmarket rivals, but Eatoni claims a 15 fold advantage in terms of queries and lookup errors over T9, and more crucially, dictionary-based systems take up an awful lot more space, meaning more cost for the phone manufacturers, and less likelihood of them becoming ubiquitous. Letterwise, on the other hand, uses a scalable database that can fit into a few kilobytes, although accuracy is better, the more storage there is. The database itself is not a dictionary, but a language-specific prediction system, and the most common letters used in English on the phone keypad are cehlnsty, since you ask. Frequencies differ from language to language, and Eatoni offers numerous different versions, including Latin. Why Latin? Because we could, apparently.
MacKenzie, I. Scott (2002). "KSPC (Keystrokes per Character) as a Characteristic of Text Entry Techniques". In Paternò, Fabio (ed.). Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices: 4th International Symposium, Mobile HCI 2002, Pisa, Italy, September 18–20, 2002 Proceedings. Berlin: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 203. ISBN 3-540-44189-1. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
The book notes:
Prefix-Based Disambiguation. To avoid the problem just noted, Eatoni Ergonomics (www.eatoni.com) developed an alternative to dictionary-based disambiguation. Their method, called LetterWise, uses prefix-based disambiguation [7]. Instead of using a stored dictionary to guess the intended word, LetterWise uses probabilities of “prefixes” in the target language to guess the intended letter. A prefix is simply the letters preceding the current keystroke. Implementations currently use a prefix size of three. For example, if the user presses the 3 key with prefix ‘_th’, the intended next letter is quite likely ‘e’ because ‘_the’ in English is far more probable than ‘_thd’ or ‘_thf’.
The distinguishing feature is that prefix-based disambiguation does not use a dictionary of stored words: it is based on the probabilities of letter sequences in a language. Thus, the technique degrades gracefully when confronted with unusual character sequences, as in abbreviations, slang, etc. Switching to an alternate entry mode is not needed.
Still, the wrong letter is occasionally produced, and in these cases the user presses the NEXT key to choose the next mostly likely letter for the given key and context.
...
Although the comparison with dictionary-based disambiguation is less impressive, the KSPC figure for LetterWise does not carry the same assumption with respect to dictionary words.
Olsen Jr., Dan R. (2009). Lee, Marie (ed.). Building Interactive Systems: Principles for Human-Computer Interaction. Boston: Cengage. p. 368. ISBN 978-1-4239-0248-5. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
The book notes:
The LetterWise14 system addressed the T9 issues by using character N-grams rather than a dictionary. When the user presses a key, the most probable character, given the previous N-1 characters, is displayed. This means that the user sees immediately the character that has been selected. If this character is incorrect, Multitap techniques are used to get at the correct character. This is an extension of the earlier LessTap15 system that uses only character probabilities. LessTap and LetterWise are not reliant upon words being in the dictionary. MacKenzie et al have reported a KSPC of 1.15 for LetterWise. They also performed actual text entry experiments over many days to address the learning issues. In the first 25-minute session, LetterWise achieved 7.3 words per minute with Multitap generating 7.2 wpm. By the 20th session, LetterWise users achieved an average of 21 wpm with Multitap achieving 15.5 wpm.
Mooney, Elizabeth V. (2001-01-15). "Eatoni taps into text-entry solutions market". Radio Communications Report. 29 (3). Crain Communications.
The article notes:
LetterWise is the first generation of Eatoni's LOPA software. It is designed to compete with the multi-tap systems in common use on mobile phones today.
On average, multi-tap requires 2.2 keystrokes per letter typed, Gutowitz said. LetterWise, which eliminates the need for users to press a "next" key or wait for a time-out, averages 1.18 strokes per letter.
LetterWise uses three kilobytes of memory, small enough to fit easily onto a Subscriber Identity Module card. Although SIM cards generally are associated with GSM air interfaces, the predictive text system is agnostic regarding RF technology, Gutowitz said.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow LetterWise to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all of those pass WP:GNG - for instance, the MacKenzie scholarly article is fundamentally self-published - but I admittedly didn't see the Economist article in my before search. SportingFlyer T·C 21:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since this article is under major construction work.Catfurball (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:(As construction template steward) To a degree most if not all or nearly all sources relevant to notability are in place from an AfD viewpoint. The main reason its up there is I'm still tweaking and cross checking if a significant claim is made it is from a reliable source; this particularly affects the WordWise section. I'd like to have had the template off by now or at least down to two sections. Two mornings in a row I got up with the intention of concentrating on this but it hasn't happened and three mornings ago working back from another paper I needed to introduce and look at the (Primary) Kober paper. The article is probably now at the point no-one would attempt to take it to AfD and most would not contemplate it. However a sustained argument by a skilled possibly non neutral deletionist could make a defence by an unskilled person as myself difficult (witness TOPCAT (software) and Kst (software)). Currerntly I feel have countered the initial argument to what I believe is this required level and that is unchallenged of recent and the article has now also has its subject broadened giving a wider notability surface. Thankyou. 21:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC) I observe the nom. has just altered content in the previous section as soon as I have made this comment selectively dismissing some of Cunard's suggested source while sweeping over others. I find it hard to believe MacKenzie's conference paper, experiments and study, widely cited, and at least partially verified was not scrutinised prior to conference acceptance. But I have already noted 10 days ago MacKenzie et al is not critical for notability. I note particularly Olsen is source not in the article that is useful from all points.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Djm-leighpark and WP:HEY. The article is now suitably referenced (as noted above; and on reading it), and still doesn't yet include the citations that a search of books provides (one of which I added just now). A major improvement from where it was at the nomination, and clearly an interesting product that should be WP:PRESERVED in WP. Britishfinance (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes (disambiguation)

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

With diabetes mellitus now moved to diabetes with a redirect in place, and a hatnote showing diabetes insipidus, this disambiguation page has ceased to be useful and duplicates content from diabetes. I suggest it is deleted altogether. I will remove the single contender for disambiguation, which is Diabetes (journal). JFW | T@lk 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. JFW | T@lk 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page could probably benefit from a little bit of trimming, but it is a dab page, meant to assist readers in finding the particular type of diabetes they are wanting to research, it isn't meant to fill the same role as the article. As such, it is obviously useful, but more importantly, diabetes is such a generic term for so many diseases, a dab page is surely called for to aid in navigation for readers looking for something *besides* diabetes mellitus. Otherwise, you are forcing readers to have to read the entire diabetes mellitus (now named diabetes) page to find the *other* types of diabetes they are looking for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are so many partial matches on this page that it is more akin to a portal than a disambiguation page. SpinningSpark 13:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - helpful for general public upon initial arrival to the pedia, whereas the portals and categories are for further research. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The general public won't find this, because nothing links to it. They will find diabetes instead. JFW | T@lk 20:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly, it's a well-constructed index page, it just happens not (99%) to be a disambiguation page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Index of diabetes articles which is what it actually is. SpinningSpark 18:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This list is not notable enough to be its own article, but it could be merged with Diabetes. Syndicater (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost everything listed on this page is already mentioned there, so merge should be easy. JFW | T@lk 20:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is missing the point that an index page is clearly useful here, as stated repeatedly above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing wrong with this dab page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It might better be called a set index page; however, the so-called partial-title matches are not, not really. It's like the Mississippi River, which is found at Mississippi (disambiguation). That's not a PTM because the river can be referred to as just "the Mississippi". Same with most of those (so-called) PTMs on this dab page, which can be referred to as just "diabetes". At any rate, this was a pretty good page when I created it 8 years ago, and it has only gotten better thanks to several other editors. Now that DM has been moved to Diabetes, there probably should be a hatnote at that new title that links to this dab page, instead of just to the DI page. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 23:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly move, as it seems like more than a simple dab page. I notice there's a similar article with narrower scope at Outline of diabetes (it only covers diabetes mellitus). – Reidgreg (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a valid justification for deletion. This is a useful disambig. My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus to delete. After extended time for discussion, consensus appears closer to keep, or, as a second option, to merge. bd2412 T 01:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Berserk chapters

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

Berserk is notable, but there's no reason to think that a big list of the chapters is notable. I don't see much evidence in reliable sources that individual chapters receive any substansive coverage or reviews that would warrant the creation of such a list. This is material is WP:FANCRUFT and WP:LISTCRUFT, and it would be far more appropriate on a fan wiki than on here.

Fails WP:LISTN, with a total lack of independent, reliable sources that discuss this grouping. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as with all articles in Category:Lists of manga volumes and chapters, such lists have long been considered appropriate for WP:SPINOUT reasons. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're citing WP:OSE and WP:OTHERSTUFF, which are arguments to avoid in deletion debates. In fact, I recently nominated List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force guest stars for AFD, and in there proponents of the page cited Category:Lists of guest appearances in television. Those arguments were as irrelevant in that AFD as they are here.

Further, there's nothing in policy that requires manga series to have all the chapters listed. Citing WP:SPINOUT is entirely circular: it assumes that manga series should have chapter lists as a starting position, then cites that policy because the pages would be too big, and thus should be split. But why should every manga series have a chapter list in the first place? Such lists seem to violate major policies: WP:RS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN.

WP:RS. Pages should have third party reliable sources. These pages, such as this one, typically don't. This page has only the publisher's website.

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Lists of every manga chapter in every series seems to be entirely indiscriminate information. Even if limited to just series that pass GNG, it still seems overly discriminate.

WP:LISTN. There is a literally notability guidelines for lists, and this page violates them. I don't see anything in there that's an exception for manga chapters or such. LISTN says:

"One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.".

So has this topic, chapters of Berserk been discussed as a set topic in RS? This page literally has only publisher citations. I say that such lists are bordering on WP:FANCRUFT that is more appropriate on fan wikis and fan sites, but not here. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ANIME: "For sections on anime series/OVAs, manga, and novels, include the appropriate list of episodes or volumes and chapters. If a given list is long compared to the rest of the article, consider splitting it out to a separate article titled List of (series) episodes, List of (series) chapters, List of (series) novels, or similar." Again, a split out is what has happened here. Chapters =/= guest stars; guest stars are a lot more indiscriminate so it's not a comparable situation. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 23:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As written, the MOS:ANIME seems to be advocating creating indiscriminate lists and seems to be in contradiction with other Wikipedia policies such as WP:LISTN. In any case, I don't believe a MOS can trump WP policies. It's entirely possible that those writing it never consulted other policies or thought too deeply about it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per what Knowledgekid says below, if you have a problem with MOS:ANIME that's something that should be discussed at WT:ANIME as its an established guideline with a scope far wider than just one AfD. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per Harizotoh9's reply. Wikipedia is not a series of catalogue entries. This would be more suitable on a fan Wiki but not here. Reyk _YO! 07:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not see any WP:FANCRUFT or WP:LISTCRUFT there though? How would basic information such as "release dates" or chapter names fall under that category? Category:Lists of manga volumes and chapters does come into play here as there are tens of articles that are structured the same way with the sources. You would just be scratching the surface of something with a wider scope which should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possible rename to List of Berserk volumes since the list focuses on the volumes instead of the chapters. The main topic of the list is unquestionably notable as is covered by multiple reliable sources, and since the main topic is made up of individual volumes, a list of those volumes is appropriate per WP:SALAT. Likewise, when reliable sources review the work, they comment on the collection of chapters that are within a volume and over the course of multiple volumes as well. On top of that, there are a number of similar lists that are Featured Lists. I doubt that those lists would have been elevated to Featured List status if they were viewed as "indiscriminate collection of information". —Farix (t | c) 11:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Or Merge. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 09:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Berserk (manga) or else Delete - does not meet WP:GNG - the references are to Berserk volumes and not to independent reliable sources - not notable enough by any guideline for a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid child article of Berserk (manga). —Xezbeth (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But merge could work depending. I'm concerned that this fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which advises that content is supposed to be a summary of accepted knowledge, not a complete exposition of all details. After the Contents box, what is there that is original to wikipedia? The page could likely be autogenerated by a script. It has formatting but no writing or editing. As with others, I think that this type of catalogue/database is better suited for a site focused on exhaustive coverage. And as for other lists currently existing, WP:OTHERSTUFF reminds us that the goal isn’t to set the bar as low as possible. Perhaps, as some mention, it would be worth a discussion at one of the higher level pages.

While many justify topic splitting as being a prescribed solution, there is also the option to reduce the text (both parent and child page). Has that been done? There shouldn’t be a rush to split the page. Just one obvious example, I have three screens of references that are fundamentally all the same and are unnecessary as there are no claims being made on the page, nor quotations WP:CITE, WP:REFBOMB, WP:CITEKILL. This is against 11 screens of the list. Does every chapter need to be listed? I haven’t looked closely at the parent page to see what edits might be considered there. Finally, WP:CSC suggests that there be restraint when it comes to "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group.” and recommends <32KB. ogenstein (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several votes but half don't have policy based rationales, can't see a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is not notable enough to be its own article, but it should be merged with Berserk (manga). Syndicater (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge If it is considered that this content does not deserve a separate article, this article is better merged than deleted, surely if it is hidden behind a click on a table (like a spoiler button) it would not even occupy much space in the main article, after all. Garlicolive (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chapter and episode list for notable series always have a separate article when long enough. If you want to change this it should be done in a proper discussion area, not in individual AFDs. Dream Focus 17:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Berserk (manga), since Berserk is notable -MA Javadi (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable spinout topic. We do this all the time with TV series, comics, etc. Too much information for a balanced article if merged, but not Cruft material. Hobit (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Singh Dhillon

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

I don't see that this rich man meets our notability requirements. He gets two mentions on GBooks, a handful on GNews. Where is the in-depth coverage that would enable us to write a better article about him than the present poor stub? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – He has been amply covered by the mainstream media in India and Canada, but most of that coverage seems like in the form of interviews (with seemingly inadequate independent coverage), e.g. [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], etc. But a few articles seem to have decent amount of independent coverage, such as this one of The Sunday Guardian. Anyway, this perception of mine is based on a cursory search, and will look again at this in a day or two. BTW, is anyone familiar with this magazine? - NitinMlk (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Justlettersandnumbers, SyndicaterUI78, and NitinMlk: Please take another look. I have expanded the article with multiple references, and it is now a decently referenced short article about a person who is clearly notable. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I looked the article and find it's could remain,no significant issue I saw in main Article.Forest90 (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep. Keep/Nom withdrawn. I thought I'd done sufficient WP:BEFORE, but clearly not. Let's not waste another week when consensus is clear. StarM 01:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MumboJumbo

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

This page came on my radar via RM as someone with COI was attempting a move. That issue has been settled, however separately it does not appear that this is a notable org. Coverage is limited to some industry pubs, but isn't in the depth that WP:ORG requires. I don't believe they inherit notability from their games. StarM 15:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep nom is right that this barely meets NORG, but the lawsuit with Popcap is a notable factor. Looking at the Luxor games, this is a case where if we merged the Luxor and 7 Wondows series into this page (as nearly all the games in those series are not really notable either but the series is...) then we have a better-standing article in notability. --Masem (t) 16:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Meets WP:GNG. Could do some improving though. Syndicater (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Masem. I would prefer to see this article and the articles on Luxor and 7 Wonders expanded instead. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion shows a substantial amount of effort to find sourcing to use in the article, and a lack of it available. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Bebitch Jeffe

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

BLP with insufficient references Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am finding significant coverage (WP:GNG) over several decades in print newspapers and other independent sources (~4000 in Newspapers.com, ~1400 in Gale Research, several books mentions), where she is often quoted as a political analyst and expert on California politics. She's also a contributor to several news agencies. Finding an independent source for biographical details, though, seems like it might be the main challenge. -- Netoholic @ 12:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno as per User:Netoholic Faculty bio [34] can be used to improve the page. Her [ https://bedrosian.usc.edu/files/2013/05/SBJ_Publications_List.pdf Publications list] shows that she does political analysis in the media, not scholarlarly articles, not books. My searches turn up nothing that is about her beyond boilerplate interview identifiers, NPR: "We're joined by USC Political Analyst Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, who's in Burbank. Good morning. Professor SHERRY BEBITCH JEFFE (Political Analyst, University of Southern California): Good morning, Renee... E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
gBooks [35].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it wouldn't be an inclusion on academic output grounds, but more as a media personality (hence my GNG vote). She has a LOT of appearances, which makes searching for biographical substance difficult. -- Netoholic @ 19:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need some sort of sourcing beyond the fact that she is interviewed as an expert. At this point she fails WP:BASIC. If somebody finds WP:SIGCOV, feel free to ping me. I am always willing to revisit and reconsider when sources are found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er.... just for the record, my iVote was "delete" due to failure to locate WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Netoholic. Here is a link that might be useful for biographical details (AAGC Award for Excellence from Goucher College) [36] Polyharrisson (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. I'm a little frustrated that still haven't located Any SECONDARY SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, that an alumni award does not contribute to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have BOLDLY removed Jeffe's name from our list of science-related deletions. Political Science is a fine and honourable field to earn a PhD in, just, it isn't in category:Scientist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Routine academic without as yet significant achievements. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I keep revisiting, and searching, and I keep failing to find WP:SIGCOV. She was a talking head, an expert who was a regular expert opinion on radio an TV. She was a staffer at the state legislature, and on campaigns. Then she became "Senior Fellow, USC Price School of Public Policy" . Nobody had found SECONDARY coverage of her, nor has anyone found that she wrote a paper that had significant impact. Fails WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also question the care with which User Horse Eye Jack formed his opinion. Jack has a record of terse endorsements for keeping pages on women in science [37], where this discussion was erroneously listed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AlwaysHD

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

Poorly sourced, SPA-created article about a defunct and non-notable company. Substantially edited by a banned paid spammer. MER-C 09:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG, has poor sources, and it fails WP:NOR. Syndicater (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:ORGSIG ("If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable") - has no "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence provided or found to indicate that this company/product ever attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Kramár

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

Subject does not yet pass WP:NHOCKEY. He needs seven more games in the Slovak Extraliga to pass the 200 game mark and he has signed for HK Poprad for 2019-20 so there is a chance he will reach that mark, but as we have to focus on the now, and the new season is roughly 4-5 months away, he is not notable, yet. Ligue Magnus does not qualify to meet the 200 mark either. Tay87 (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Syndicater (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not entirely convinced that "we have to focus on the now", since this article has been around for 8 years and I am generally hesitant to delete a long-standing article when there is a good chance the subject will be notable shortly. Wikipedia guidelines would certainly support such deletions, but that strikes me as overly bureaucratic, and Wikipedia is not bureaucracy. But since this article is only a one line stub, we are not really losing anything by deleting now and restoring if he meets notability in a few months. He fails NHOCKEY and a cursory Google search didn't show much coverage, so I am comfortable deleting. Rlendog (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My hesitance to delete described above was based on the notion that he is only 7 games short of meeting NHOCKEY. But I am getting fewer Slovak games than 193. Maybe I am missing some But I am getting about 40 games short, in which case my hesitance goes away completely. Rlendog (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You missed the playoff games. He played 193. -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm on the fence about this one just as Rlendog is, though given the information that is currently available I endorse deletion with no prejudice against re-creation should the subject qualify in the future. Deadman137 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 merge to Optical disc packaging#Digipak/Digipack. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digipak

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

A type of optical disc packaging. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Sources are all unreliable / commercial / passing mentions. A search found some relatively brief mentions in books; not enough for an article, but perhaps enough for a merger to Optical disc packaging. Sandstein 08:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Optical_disc_packaging#Digipak/Digipack per nom. Lacks sufficient significant coverage. --94rain ^Talk 13:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Optical disc packaging § Digipak/Digipack; a functional WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge And Redirect Reasons already stated. Syndicater (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jirawat Hemansutikun

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

Reason Evrdkmkm (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC) this person is notable, too short article, unsourced and unclear texts in this article. /the ref. that they're add like the ref. maybe it's fake links and not available.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~You may like to try proposing a deletion instead of requesting speedy deletion next time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Correction: I see, my information is unnecessary per the edits to Jiho Lee: I'm apparently not suggesting something new here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An earlier version of this article at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jirawat_Hemansutikun&oldid=818693523 was longer and had more references. The nominator has a pattern of deleting text from and then seeking deletion of articles about Thai models. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
he is notable if he is famous in Thailand or Asia he will still have his article on Thai wiki and they will not removed from Thai wiki. so his fans knows him only on his social media like FB and IG not in entertainment or fashion industries.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The above comment probably misunderstood the meaning of the word notable, and meant the opposite. I've removed extra bold text. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one of the 4 reference links were working and it was to Bugaboo, a streaming service, so references are sketchy, certainly not "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" as required by WP:BASIC - and the only external link is to a Facebook page - his one award is not "well-known and significant" as required by WP:ANYBIO - does not meet notability requirements - Epinoia (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The four references in the article are archived on the Wayback Machine. They are: an online reproduction of a photoshoot interview from Attitude magazine[38], a column from Post Today newspaper (the archival of which appears to be broken so no text was archived)[39], a catalogue listing showing cover of said Attitude issue[40], and a talk show in which he appeared as a guest[41]. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep. The nomination doesn't make sense and the nominator didn't make a valid reason/argument for deletion. This nomination is being closed as a keep with no prejudice against a speedy renomination that is coherent and logically sound. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jiho Lee

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

Reason Evrdkmkm (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC) this person is notable, too short article, unsourced and unclear texts in this article. /the ref. that they're add like the ref. maybe it's fake links and not available.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An earlier version of this article at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jiho_Lee&oldid=894661914 is more complete and has more references, including some that had been rescued by User:InternetArchiveBot and that were subsequently removed by another editor. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
he is notable if he is famous in Thailand or Asia he will still have his article on Thai wiki and they will not removed from Thai wiki. so his fans knows him only on his social media like FB page, not in entertainment or fashion industries.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the argument "his article on Thai wiki" is not compelling per WP:OTHERLANGS - Epinoia (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator says this person is notable, by which I imagine they mean it he is not notable. There are references to th.wiki which make no sense as the subject of this article is Korean and doesn’t have an article in th.wiki. If anyone wants to mount a case that the sourcing is not adequate I’ll consider changing my vote, but I’m not happy with the encyclopaedia losing content as a result of such a confused nomination. Mccapra (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and question. (i) The nomination makes no sense to me and I shall therefore ignore it. (ii) I note that the article says "He then modeled for some of the biggest names in fashion industry such as attitude, Kenneth Cole and ELLE Fashion Week", with no reference. (iii) If this claim were referenced, so what? Does being photographed for "biggest names" confer notability? (Being photographed to appear anywhere seems un-notable to me, but then fashion mystifies me.) (iv) Perhaps this AFD attempt should be tossed out for having an incomprehensible nomination, without prejudicing the fate of any later, coherent nomination. -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep. The nomination doesn't make sense and the nominator didn't make a valid reason/argument for deletion. This nomination is being closed as a keep with no prejudice against a speedy renomination that is coherent and logically sound. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haruehun Airry

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

Reason Evrdkmkm (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC) this person is notable, too short article, unsourced and unclear texts in this article. /the ref. that they're add like the ref. maybe it's fake links and not available.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An earlier version of this article at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Haruehun_Airry&oldid=838057241 is more complete and has more references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
all the ref. that they added in the article maybe it's fake because it's all dead links and some link it's Thai Red Cross Org. website and news didnt talked about Haruehun on website/news. so we dont have his article in Thai too because he is notable, he just was viral on Thai social by his work about sexy male model pics.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't remove links for being dead. Instead, we ask User:InternetArchiveBot to look for and add a ink to an archived copy of the dead link on a site like Internet Archive, or we do it ourselves. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

he is notable if he is famous in Thailand or Asia he will still have his article on Thai wiki and they will not removed from Thai wiki. so his fans knows him only on his social media like FB and IG.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The above comment probably misunderstood the meaning of the word notable, and meant the opposite. I've removed extra bold text. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He seems to be moderately notable, with some amount of online coverage. However the most of references cited in the article are of poor quality, like [42] which only described a project but failed to show his involvement in the project. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The cited BK magazine interview is rather brief. Lots of mention on the web, but the only in-depth Thai sources I could find are this article from Adam's Love[43] (which isn't independent of the subject), and this one from Post Today[44]. Has appeared on some talk shows with Bright TV[45][46] --Paul_012 (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The amount of recent coverage of his field alone is enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Incoherent nomination and sufficient sources identified. Mccapra (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He seems to be a notable person, but to complete passes notability needs to add some reliable sources.--MA Javadi (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 merge to Fin (band). Sandstein 09:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artisan Records

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

Adequate sourcing does not exist to pass NCORP. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fin (band). This is rather an obvious solution - why is this at AfD? Chubbles (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost no coverage. Possibly a selective merge and redirect to Fin (band)--94rain ^Talk 12:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artikal Music UK

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

Independent sourcing to pass NCORP not available. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence passes WP:GNG or any applicable SNG.
Delete It looks not be in an adequate level of --sufficient-- notability, as a result I presume it would be better to be deleted unless adding related appropriate sources as well as adding extra related content. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep. Sandstein 09:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackson Herald

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

Article about a smalltown weekly newspaper, referenced almost entirely to its own self-published content, in itself and co-owned sister publications rather than any evidence of independent coverage in non-affiliated sources -- and the only remotely independent source is the paid-inclusion obituary of a former publisher in another newspaper's classified section, which is still not a notability-supporting source. As always, newspapers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they need to be the subject of reliable source coverage in sources other than themselves, such as local history books. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added mention of The Jackson Herald's long-time owner/editor John N. Holder, who was son of owner of historic Holder Plantation, listed on the National Register, located 3.5 miles outside of Jefferson, the county seat of Jackson County, sourced from this Jackson County planning review of its historic resources.

It appears to me that The Jackson Herald may have had a long history and co-developed along with the county. The current article's history section so far only mentions that the newspaper was bought in 1965. I would be interested to see coverage of its founding and longer history, which I presume exists in the local/regional/state histories and libraries of Georgia.

Also I just found mention in the Jackson County's Chamber of Commerce website's History page that "John N. Holder of Jefferson was Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives twice and for many years chairman of the State Highway Board. Holder was also editor and publisher of The Jackson Herald for almost seventy years." So the newspaper has a longer history than covered in the article so far. I am guessing it was/is the main newspaper of record for the county. --Doncram (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the same info is mentioned in Jackson County government's History page. I am sure there is coverage about the newspaper, besides archives of its papers, in other local/regional/state histories as well. --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the Jackson Herald Building, built c.1925 on Lee Street in Jefferson, is listed on the National Register as a contributing building in the Jefferson Historic District (Jefferson, Georgia) (currently a redlink). The buildng can/should be covered in the article about the newspaper. --Doncram (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The district's NRHP nomination adds historical info, to be added to this article, going back to 1875: "Jefferson's first newspaper, the Forest News, was founded in 1875 and began publication by the Jackson County Publishing Company. The paper's name was changed to the Jackson Herald in 1886, and it remains the only newspaper to be published in the community and is the official legal organ of Jackson County."

Several quotes from the NRHP document:

"In 1881 an editorial in the Jackson Herald asked why city officials continued to allow cattle to pasture in Woodbine Cemetery (located a short distance southwest of the public square), revealing the small, almost rural quality that Jefferson continued to possess."
"In 1905, the Jackson Herald published an article by Andrew J. Bell in which the Jefferson of that year was contrasted with the Jefferson of the year the railroad arrived. The intervening twenty-two years had seen the town's population triple from 500 to 1,500; taxable property in the community increased from $100,000 in 1883 to $500,000 in 1905; the number of merchandise stores increased from two in 1883 to fifteen in 1905; and the number of children attending school in Jefferson rose from 50 in1883 to 350 in 1905. While the railroad was certainly a factor in the town's growth during these twenty-two years, most of the changes between 1899 and 1905 were the result of a new business, Jefferson Cotton Mills...."
It was in "September of 1919 that Jackson County farmers first began reporting sightings of the insects in their cotton crops. The Herald promptly began reporting that "the boll weevil is here," and numerous stories urged farmers to consider cattle and hogs as alternatives to cotton. The impact of the boll weevil on Jackson County cotton production was widespread and extensive...."

The above several quotes are not about the newspaper itself, but the newspaper is the definitive source about the county's economic, social, other history, and can/should be cited in articles about Jefferson and the county. --Doncram (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the newspaper was a regular daily newspaper for most of its existence, and has just cut back to a weekly in recent years like many newspapers have done. --Doncram (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted before, but not put it into an essay yet, that Wikipedia could/should serve as a comprehensive gazetteer or whatever is the term, for covering local/regional newspapers which ever operated, like we already choose to do for populated places (existing and long-gone ones too). It is very useful to have some way to evaluate newspapers as sources. I have myself created stub articles for numerous obscure local newspapers, when it turns out I am citing them directly or citing quotes from them in National Register nomination documents.

That said, I do not see any inbound links from National Register place articles or other articles using The Jackson Herald as a source. However I think that future links are likely, and again it provides a service to readers and editors to have some info about this newspaper as a source.

--Doncram (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC

Comment: Any which way, the article should not be deleted outright, and at worst should be merged/redirected to mention or a paragraph or two or at least a table row in List of newspapers in Georgia (U.S. state).

Also the online JacksonHeraldTODAY website includes tab for "BraseltonNewsTODAY" and the Braselton News covers Braselton and other towns and areas in Barrow County, Georgia. Also news of Barrow County is covered in another tab for the Barrow News Journal. It seems that several historical papers in a larger area than just Jackson County, Georgia have been merged, at least production-wise if not editorially. I wouldn't mind if they were all covered together in one article having sections for each one. --Doncram (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"added mention of The Jackson Herald's long-time owner/editor John N. Holder, who was son of owner of historic Holder Plantation" but are there reliable sources that ascertain the notability of the paper rather than the owner? Per WP:NORG, if the organization or company hasn't been reliably and independently covered as the organization, it isn't notable. This is notability isn't inherited per our policy. Graywalls (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Note that sources have been added during AfD making nomination statement obsolete. Articles on news media - including this 150-year-old newspaper - are extremely useful and part of the point of having an encyclopedia. I did a modest expand source (note that I could not see past the jump in the article on the Holden's 54th anniversary.) But this article should never have been brought to AfD. As User:Doncram says, we may indeed need a new guideline on notability of news media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a news media outlet is an organization, and I believe WP:NORG that covers companies and organizations should be applied. Graywalls (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doncram and EM's expansions. Nate • (chatter) 03:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I didn’t look at this when it was first nominated but the sourcing is fine now. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Maklakov

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

No notable Russian actor of episodic roles.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hard to judge the notability of a foreign (to me) personality, but the total lack of references does not meet WP:BASIC, showing no "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - Epinoia (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NEXIST you are supposed to look for sources not just run a quick perusal of the article. See the Russian wikipedia article that has more references and try google translate, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has many prominent roles and the Russian wikipedia article linked in this article shows more evidence of significant coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Large amount of articles about him (and his personal life), and his views on politics and sports get coverage. He's described as a "well-known actor."[47][48][49] His interviews[50] get reported on by secondary sources.[51] —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus. This debate suffers from a lack of participation. If no RS (in English or any other language) become available in the coming month, no prejudice against a renomination. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Krishna (actor)

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

not qualifying WP:NARTIST and No WP:RS, WP:GNG, but has some news articles, I can't understand telegu, if someone who knows telegu could add? Atleast English sources are not enough. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe that not knowing a language means one must nominate the article for deletion. This discussion would be proper at the talkpage of the article. Thanking you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 02:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tiven2240, There is hardly any coverage on the subject in English or Telugu. while nominating I had done my searches but, if someone could enlight me on that, I am ready and we can close this AFD as keep, But I don't think we would find much. this AFD is one way to seeks input from the community. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is notable and BLP sources tag is better than XFD.IRIEN✓ (aka MAh'ia)🙏 10:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manupriy Ahluwalia, sources please? would you mind pointing at some? And Remember I am asking for proofs by WP:RS and for WP:NARTIST? QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CanvasChamp

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

Multiple issues. None of the sources are good. It doesn't meet NCORP. Strong grounds for believing near-SPA author has an undeclared COI. It's promotional. Full details on the Talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC) KJP1 (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 beyond the UPE issues identified by the nom and regardless of any notability this page is, with the exception of one sentence that mentions the competitors, completely promotional and there for eligible for speedy deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This advertising brochure is probably borderline G11 worthy. Reyk _YO! 08:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tettra

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

The only source for this page is a site that simply lists startups. There are no external sources (other pages on this topic have been deleted for no notability) Reception123 (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 08:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 08:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Foit-Albert

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

Does not meet WP:GNG ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 * Keep China's Sacred Sites appears to be a notable text with only two authors, according to WorldCat its held by 260 institutions so while I have misgivings about the publisher Himalayan Institute. Subject also seems to have accomplished a somewhat significant feat in their field, e.g. "formed the first solely women-owned Buffalo architectural firm, Foit-Albert Associates, in 1977.” They appear to have had a long and productive career, I think this passes WP:GNG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - being co-author of one book doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR, although the book itself may pass but it's best to let the process make that decision. As for the claim of her forming "the first solely women-owned Buffalo architectural firm", the cited source does not support that claim, and I have since removed it. The cited source actually states: ...people used to call me the groundhog,” jokes Foit-Albert. “I began FAA with just two other young architects. Once we landed some historic preservation work in the village of Orchard Park, N.Y., we finally set up the first real office.” She was referring to working out of her basement and then moving into her "first real office." The article is promotion of the book she co-authored, and of her architectural firm and simply doesn't qualify for inclusion in WP per WP:GNG or WP:Notability. It is better suited for an interview-type article in one of the industry magazines. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The book appears to have gotten very little coverage, Library Journal is a good source, PubWeekly less so, because they review such a high percentage of trade books. And the local Buffalo paper covered the book, but "local author writes..." doesn't cut much mustard. Fails WP:AUTHOR, ~~fails WP:GNG~~.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, while I agree that LJ is the better source, Publisher's Weekly is a good source. They don't review "all" of the books. They review a lot, but a long time ago, I went through and broke it down and they seem to have a good ratio of reviews to all of the books published each year in English and Spanish. Basically, if it's not in PW, we should worry! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "all". But it is true that, as you said, "if it's not in PW, we should worry", that is, we should doubt even the possibility that a book is notable because PU does indeed review viruually ever book that is published "trade" that the publicists at a reputable publishing house are pushing. This makes PW an excellence index of book that publishers hope will sell. But as an indicator of notability? not so much. Many/most books reviewed in PW sink with hardly a ripple.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete..~~ 'see below for my modification of this: We need more coverage of women who are notable architects; the underlined words are both important--the first to indicate an area we need to emphasise, the second to indicate the basic qualification for an article. One non academic book does not meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and there is no indication that he work as an architect is notable . There's a list of awards and boards at an earlier version [52]. None of them indicate notability. (The who's who link thereis a little odd, since it goes to someone else's entry; I notice this was in the earliest version, and the fact that it goes to someone else's entry is obvious from the inserted reference [53], so this indicates a remarkable careless preparation of the article, ~~and I am embarrassed that this work might come from an event sponsored by WM-NYC~~ . DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need to add that most work by this editor is very much better than this--I withdraw my over-hasty judgment. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG. I found an article from Tennessee (and added it to the article). The Tennessee piece talks about her success as an architect while being a single mother and her firm revitalizing the downtown historic area of Buffalo. In addition, there are several sources that I cannot access here: 1) "Beverly Foit-Albert". Business First of Buffalo. September 2013:B-9. 2) CHUGHTAI-HARVEY, A. Beverly Foit-Albert has been to the top of the mountain, in more ways than one. Business First of Buffalo, [s. l.], v. 21, n. 47, p. 17, 2005. 3) Foit-Albert re-enters architecture business. Business First of Buffalo, [s. l.], v. 31, n. 40, p. 4, 2015. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Megalibrarygirl I'm getting only a snippet view of that Buffalo article, " So perhaps it should come as no surprise that Ms. [Beverly] Foit-Albert -- president and CEO of Foit-Albert Associates, Architecture, Engineering, Surveying -- is passionate about Buffalo. Just as significant, with the architecture students she teaches at the University at Buffalo, Ms. Foit-Albert has undertaken studies aimed at finding new uses for old city landmarks as diverse as Central Terminal, the Henry Hobson Richardson buildings at the Buffalo Psychiatric Center, former East Side churches and the industrial buildings of the waterfront's Cobblestone Historic District. But nothing speaks more about passion for the city than what Ms. Foit-Albert did with her own business in the late 1980s. Precisely as common sense was leading other businesses in the opposite direction, Ms. Foit-Albert took over a Main Street building that had..." It is from the city she liven in, but it looks like a SIGCOV profile.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to User:Megalibrarygirl for taking a closer look, I had only searchedthe book. Here's another long, profile, full view can be accessed on Proquest. I am not familiar with this publiction, but it showed up in a Proquest newspaper search. (Profile: Beverly Foit-Albert, Hirsch, Dick. Western New York; Buffalo Vol. 67, Iss. 7, (Jul 1992): 26.). And the same Proquest search shows multio;e article about her in the Buffalo paper, some with full view. I am not gonna have time to source this one today - but I think the book + the Buffalo newspaper coverage of her opinions, buildings, and career over many years puts her over top.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Megalibrarygirl, the business first source would make a big difference but I can neither access the source nor withdraw my nom. Perhaps the closer will take this into consideration? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't access the source, either, Atsme. I just added them in case others can view them. I think the stuff in the article already and the ref I found already mean she passes GNG. The other sources would help expand her article, I think. :) Thanks to E.M.Gregory for helping to improve the article. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the magazine I referenced, [www.wnyheritage.org/ Western New York]. Looks like a solid, regional (not just local) source. Unfotunately, online archive only goes back to 1997, and this was published in 1992. I read it via Proquest and was able to bring the article up to where I think it meets WP:BASIC. Noting also that her book is cited in other, serious-looking books on this topic [54].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC) E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even for cities like Buffalo, I am reluctant to accept the evidence of their newspapers as sufficiently reliable sources for notability, The snippet quoted above shows why: They are celebrating her not for being an architect, but for being a local architect--for advancing her and their own city. This is the opposite of NPOV coverage--it's rat her promotionalism of their city, Additionally, based on the descriptions in the reviews, her book is not a scholarly or even serious book about Chinese acred sites or Chinese architecture , but a sort of popular coffee table book Not that one couldn't be notable for writing such books, but not for just one , unles sit had really spectacular reviews--which this one does not . DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are, in fact, non local sources. AIArcitect has her as the architect-of-the-week [55], Builders Review, a trade journal, profiled her firm in 2014 Foit-Albert Associates Designing for the community and environment. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Local sources aren't worthless. Buffalo is a large city and any person who is notable in that community is also probably likely notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. The idea that she's not independent of Buffalo because she improved the city is ludicrous. You may as well say that articles from Illinois newspapers are NPOV in regards to Frank Lloyd Wright. That's silly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'

Weak Keep. Checking further, I think she might be notable; the problems are with the article, not with her career. The notability is not as an author, but based on her restoration work of major landmark buildings. They are mentioned in the article, but not linked or discussed. I've added at least the links, and I hope others will add some further references to her work on them. What is important about any architect or other creative professional is their creative work , not peripheral books that they may have written. It is absurdd to write an article about them in an encyclopedia without discussing their actual work in some depth. It is equally absurd to discuss the article purely in terms of the technicalities of sourcing, or to make it depend on what is easy to document- but does not give notability . DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep. Sandstein 09:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Vogt

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

WP:BLP, referenced solely to a primary source profile on the self-published website of his own political party rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage in real media, of a person notable only as a former chairperson of a political party's youth chapter. This is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because he exists, but would require him to pass WP:GNG on depth of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - initial issues have since been resolved. ^{19:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)} ~~Delete~~ - ~~DRAFTIFY~~ and let it incubate ^{20:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)} fails GNG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The biography is a stub, but the claim that the only notability notability comes through his chairmanship of the youth chapter isn't true. He's still today a member of the board of the SPD (Parteivorstand) on the national level, which happens to be one of the ruling parties federal level in Germany.

Additionally, there are plenty of news articles that talk about him. I added six links to mainstream media sources but it would be easy to add more. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to use references to support content, not just factoids in the infobox, before they actually constitute support for notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: What existing Wikipedia policy rules that what's in the infobox isn't content?

The policy says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The election of a new JUSO chairperson is an event that receives "significant coverage in reliable sources". The sources I linked indicate so. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A single statement that the person exists, paired with an infobox but no substantive body text, is not a proper Wikipedia article. Articles need to be substantive to have any encyclopedic value. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat - perhaps a move to DRAFT would work? That will give the article creator time to actually make it a WP article with proper sourcing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. at this point, there are 4 major articles from 4 major german news sources,. That's enough. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this refbombed blurb of triviality. Refund when actual notability happens. Trillfendi (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft - if there are other noteworthy facts about him that can be properly sourced, let's see them and then we can reconsider. greenrd (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - issues have since been fixed. Subject meets GNG based on the updates and the German WIKI. Lubbad85 (☎) 12:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Move to draft space per suggestiong by User:Atsme Subject may be notable but the article is a stub and I cannot be bothered to work on it. The references should be formatted properly and the article developed. Lubbad85 (☎) 16:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject has a page on the German Wiki (which has a high bar for inclusion). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment perhaps Stefka Bulgaria you can use the Herman wiki to improve this article. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved some information from the German wiki to the article. You can all decide if that's enough or it needs more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced NOW. Meets WP:GNG and WP:Sigcov No longer the article it was when the AFD was floated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Vaday

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

Does not meet WP:GNG requirements for inclusion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I see that this article was written by RotcVG for a classroom assignment, and I would advise RotcVG to save a copy of this article if they would like to refer to it in the future. If the article is deleted before they have a chance to save it, they can request a copy by contacting an administrator listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. — Newslinger talk 05:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable software engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul G. Abel

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

The article presents a short biography of an educator and his accomplishments. Though the subject of the article has appeared on a television program called The Sky at Night, the article appears to be an example of self-promotion and publicity (WP:SPIP) and likely fails meet the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnstevenbrook (talk • contribs)

Procedural Note: This nomination was missing its template and was not listed at AFD. Please consider the time of this comment as the time of listing when closing. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability from independent reliable sources outside of show/self-promotion after 8-9 years of being tagged. One of two articles (along with another The Sky at Night presenter Peter B. Lawrence) created by a single-purpose account Timelike (talk · contribs) who also uploaded the headshots to commons (Commons:Special:Contributions/Timelike). This has all the hallmarks of vanity page creations and doubtful legitimate copyright to those images because of their non-candid appearance (maybe copied from the old BBC website?). I've WP:PRODed the other article for now. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonexistent research citations and a teaching position mean no pass of WP:PROF. No in-depth independent sources for his role as a BBC co-presenter are apparent. And even his book Visual Lunar and Planetary Astronomy appears to have left barely any trace in independent sources (I found one inclusion of it in a listing of recent books, not an in-depth review) so WP:AUTHOR seems to be out as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Make that three books. Visual Lunar and Planetary Astronomy, Stargazers Notebook, and (co-authored) How to Read the Solar System: A Guide to the Stars and Planets. With one published review that I could find, of the co-authored book. Still not enough reviews for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I take it the view of other commenters here is that Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society is a non-significant award for purposes of notability? --JBL (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging by that article and the official website, I'd say that it is not a significant award for wiki-notability purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, I was going to mention that but forgot. FRAS is definitely too non-selective to count towards WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AUTHOR, fails WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation if, e.g., he writes another book that gets more reviews. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments by Eppstein and others. --Tataral (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not 'abel' to find any sources online to show notability and the ones provided don't either. Not everyone who appears on TV should get an article. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magicrete

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

This article is an advertorial. Please also see WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID. NOT KEEP -- Alice McBanff 07:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note This nomination was missing its template and not listed at AFD. I have fixed both. Please consider this comment as the time of initial listing when closing. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Forbes article referenced in the article is probably the strongest towards demonstrating notability; the other references are routine coverage, including the interview with the company founder. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, it is a common mistake to say that articles such as the Forbes one you mention meet the criteria for establishing notability. They don't. WP:ORGIND explains in great detail what is required in terms of independence and states Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The Forbes article is a classic example of churnalism where it "profiles" a company. It has all the traits including market size, founding details/founder profile, the "problem" being addressed, funding, and an future-looking note to finish. The issue is that it is all based exclusively on an interview with company executives. It fails WP:ORGIND as there is zero "original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking" that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP & WP:PROMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 redirect to Chairlift (band). Or elsewhere. Sandstein 09:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruises (Chairlift song)

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

Very little information and it really only indicates chart positions that are already on Charlift's article. This should be a redirect to Chairlift (band). JE98 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should note that this song is by far Chairlift's best known, having been featured in a 2008 iPod nano commercial. For this alone it has received a fair bit of media coverage, e.g. here and here. In March 2009, NPR's Tamara Vallejos even stated, "Brooklyn-based electro-pop trio Chairlift may not seem familiar to you at first, but no doubt you've heard its ridiculously catchy single, "Bruises," while flipping through TV channels." [56] In fact this song's appearance in this commercial is credited with making Chairlift itself become famous: "By 2009, though, they had become the reluctant poster kids for a popular wave of twee indie thanks to a ubiquitous Apple iPod Nano advert, which featured the cutesy bounce of their breakout song Bruises." [57] The song has also been remixed by Passion Pit. [58] Further coverage of the song: [59] [60] [61]. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: this is indeed the band's best-known, and best-selling, single – the article already notes that the song charted in the UK, Canada and Australia, and it charted in Germany too [62]. Charting in four different countries might be enough to demonstrate that it is notable, and the fact that IntoThinAir has demonstrated that there is some coverage of the song in reliable sources as well which could be turned into prose. Richard3120 (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chairlift (band) - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Does You Inspire You. Doesn't seem to be enough here to warrant a full article. All the stuff that's here, apart from the chart positions, can be found on the album's page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women's fear of crime

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

This article lacks notability or encyclopedic value and has virtually no other articles linking to it. It might be worth having as a subsection on Fear of crime, but there is no way this is notable enough to have its own page. Songwaters (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being an orphan isn’t a reason to delete. The sourcing is adequate to substantiate the article’s content and let’s face it... this is an engrained societal concept across generations. Trillfendi (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is evidently notable and encyclopedic. For example, the Oxford Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice explains that "First and foremost, a person’s sex is the most significant predictor of fear of crime, with women fearing crime at much higher levels than men. ... This well-established finding has been around for some time and has led researchers to ask why ..." Andrew D. (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per references. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on my research, this topic (namely "Women's fear of crime") can be appropriate from the view of notability and likewise having adequate existing sources. As a result, it might be better to keep this rather known article whose contents also can be profitable for the readers, as well. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 redirect to Adam Watson (scientist)#The Place Names of Upper Deeside. And possibly merge content from history. I believe this compromise outcome is most reflective of this discussion. Sandstein 09:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the merger in my capacity as an editor. Sandstein 09:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Place Names of Upper Deeside

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

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

Completely unreferenced articles about local interest history books by a non-notable author, offering no reason why either of them could be considered to pass WP:NBOOK. Both articles, further, make unreferenced claims about translation or pronunciation errors in the author's research -- but as always, Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own original research criticism of other people's work: if reliable sources could be shown that have already criticized the work's accuracy on the record, then we could quote short passages of criticism from those sources so long as they were attributed to those sources and not just stated as facts, but in the absence of such sources it's not our role to criticize so much as one misplaced comma of anybody's writing in our own editorial voice. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and NBOOK. Not too big a surprise that this tome didn't get reviewed. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:NBOOK Angryskies (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither of these articles suggest that they are covering a notable book and I can see nothing to indicate either has the significance that would be needed to justify them have an article of their own. Dunarc (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Germcrow (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Place Names of Upper Deeside, now cleaned-up, expanded and sourced. The nomination is deeply flawed, it does not even find the correct author, Adam Watson (scientist), where the book already had its own section! This AFD is a textbook example of lack of due dilligence. There's simply no way to miss the search results with a string like The Place Names of Upper Deeside if one does any searching. As for The Cairngorms that had an incoming link from Adam Watson (scientist) at the time of nomination, I do not have the time to source it now, but the title is a perfectly valid {{R from book}}, so for now that's a Redirect to Adam Watson (scientist). Sam Sailor 15:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per WP:HEY. FOARP (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adam Watson (scientist) where the book is already covered - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's a bit unclear so far how each article should be dealt with - there are claims of notability, but it's not so clear what they are based of.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a richly-sourced little article, and certainly an important sidelight on Watson's life. No problem with notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The book does not seem notable in its own right, so redirect to the author's page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. WP:REFUND applies. T. Canens (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yolki-palki

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

The film is popular in Russia actor and director Sergei Nikonenko, but there are no links, awards, reviews.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep. ST47 (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Camp Creek Park

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

Fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. Having a single feature of the park mentioned in a directory is not the significant coverage needed to have an article here. John from Idegon (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ I do not know which one feature and directory to which you refer. I may be able to find more sources on the history of the cemetery and other aspects of the park, though that will take a few days and may not contribute enough to help the article remain. I suggest a merge with Foristell, Missouri or St. Charles County, Missouri articles.DiamondRemley39 (talk)

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, being covered in detail in sources such as this. Andrew D. (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reedy Press is a vanity press. So besides just being a brief mention in a guidebook (which doesn't speak to notability), it's not a reliable source either. Sources that verify existence are not sufficient to show notability. The presumption of notability afforded state and national parks does not extend to local and county parks. I could support a partial merge to the county as an ATD. John from Idegon (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added more sources since deletion was proposed.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the sources you've added are mentions in guidebooks. They lack details enough to be considered as proof of notability. Additionally, only one is from outside metro St. Louis, and that is a guide to the park's trail system, not the park as a whole. Still failing WP:ORGDEPTH. DiamondRemley39, you are only allowed one !vote, so please strike one. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Indian Camp Creek, but in any event WP:PRESERVE the information on the page. SpinningSpark 23:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are at least five more books I can examine for relevant information, but if only books considered reliable are those published by traditional presses, while local history focused vanity presses such as Reedy Press and otherwise published histories are not (is this always the case, despite content and sources in such books?); and if books that focus on one element of the park such as its trails or its homestead do not help towards notability, then the other books to examine may or may not help. Merging with St. Charles County is likely the the most prudent option. Thank you.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DiamondRemley39: I wouldn't be so quick to strike your "keep". Self-published books can be considered reliable if the author is a recognised expert – see WP:SPS. The assumption here is that the publisher has taken no steps for fact checking themselves so we are relying entirely on the author. If an unreliable SPS has cited a source, then the solution is to cite the original source, not the SPS. SpinningSpark 17:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a park almost 1 square mile in size (600 acres vs. 1 sq mile being 640 acres), the largest in its area. And there are sources in the article, and it is covered in multiple guidebooks, at least. I don't buy the dismissal of guidebooks as sources. See wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION, an essay to which I contributed. In general public attractions ARE notable. Public parks have documentation in reports about their original establishment/purchase (which can be presumed to exist, though not yet found and cited here), and have regular newspaper coverage about events and features etc. And the guidebooks' coverage is basically fine, too. There is a wikipedia guideline (wp:NOTTRAVEL) about how a Wikipedia article should not merely consist of telephone numbers and directions to the attraction and opening hours (some of the stuff which a guidebook might cover), but that is not an issue with this article at all. --Doncram (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And about a couple sources that show up in Google Books search:

Author Steve Henry's coverage in "60 hikes within 60 miles St. Louis" book (Google book view allows me to see part but not all of coverage above Indian Camp Creek Park mentions regular equestrian rides run by the county, and describes a great hike, and is substantial, independent coverage, and there is no way that should be dismissed.
the guidebook by Vicki Berger Irwin and Justine Riggs, "Finally, A Locally Produced Guidebook to St. Charles, by and for Locals", is also independent and reliable in what it covers. It provides substantial coverage, including about the unique feature of the park having an observation tower in a silo that visitors can climb, and a historic homestead, and a historic cemetery (the Cannon Family Cemetery), as well as listing features such as the 18 hole disc golf course and much more. There is no reason to dismiss this source.

I have not checked the other sources in the article and/or Google Books but expect there are more valid sources that are guidebooks or other valid sources. --Doncram (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @DiamondRemley39:, your current "!vote" (i.e. "not-vote", because an AFD is not a majority-vote process) shows as "Merge", and I urge you to change it back to "Keep" explicitly. --Doncram (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for looking into the sources and for all your contributions to the discussion, @Doncram:.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Keep" is better than "Merge" because there is too much material in article already and/or in available sources to comfortably merge to any potential target selected. For example there could be more development about the historic site info (the homestead and the cemetery and maybe the silo), which could include photos and discussion of the families/individuals involved, which would not obviously be appropriate for an article about the Indian Camp Creek alone. --Doncram (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep. ST47 (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Maxey

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

Non-notable filmmaker, pushed by COI editor – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The COI is pretty obvious, both on this. page and on the film Up to Snuff, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Up to Snuff), But the thing is, the sources exist for film and filmmaker. Maxey has a track record as a TV producer that has generated some awards, some news coverage. And Up to Snuff has generated feature coverage of Maxey. I added a few recent articles about him making the film to the page. I think it now passes WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY - article was sourced during discussion. Argument for keeping boils down to :

Up to Snuff - his sole documentary film.
minor coverage of Maxey's role as producer of Up to Snuff in articles about the film
Emmy Award in 2015 for excellence in television production for "American Veterans Center Honors."
a profile in his hometownn newspaper: Valverde, Rochelle (July 6, 2015). "Lawrence native wins Emmy for excellence in TV production". Lawrence Journal-World. [[WP:E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I count at least 5 WP:RS. Any COI authors doing COI stuff and not meeting Wikipedia COI policies ought to be dealt as per policy; but as far as the article is concerned, it looks good. XavierItzm (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO the subject has an EMMY. Major award makes the subject a a major player. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's a bit of a stretch to say he won an Emmy. His show won a National Capital Chesapeake Bay Emmy, which is for television productions in the Maryland/Virginia/D.C. area. This is officially part of the Emmys, but to say he won an Emmy is misleading. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An Emmy is exactly that...an Emmy. "Mark Maxey is an Emmy award-winning Executive Producer." There is nothing misleading about that statement. Lubbad85 (☎) 23:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was more in response to Major award makes the subject a major player. A NCCB Emmy is NOT a major award, and so therefore does not automatically prove that the subject is notable. I should have made that more clear initially. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 23:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having been inclined to delete i've changed opinion due to the improvement of the article with the addition of multiple reliable sources, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Keep the article, no consensus on the author. Consensus for keeping the documentary is clear, while most of the opinions on the author appear to favour redirection or deletion or don't state an opinion on the author specifically. The category needs to be discussed at WP:CFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like I didn't notice that there is a deletion discussion up on the author as well; vacating any action here on the author article for that discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Up to Snuff

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

Non-notable documentary. At best, WP:TOOSOON, but certainly heavy WP:NPOV issues – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages, all created by Vajayhawk for promotional purposes:[reply]

– Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep This article does seem promotional, but the subject has won multiple festival awards. Although most are small time and the category nominations are all over the place, at least 3 are significant. Among references provided there is indeed some clutter, but at least 2 examples in RS--combined with the awards--should be enough to barely pass muster. As for the the other nominations, I agree Mark Maxey having his own article probably is WP:TOO SOON and should redirect here. Category:Films directed by Mark Maxey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and his entry in Category:People from Brambleton, Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are a hard delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

struck my "weak" above to a solid keep, based on references added since nomination. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PROMO tone needs clean-up. However, in addition to the awards, there has been feature story coverage, some of which I just added to the page. meets WP:NFP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Up to Snuff as the article has been significantly improved as per WP:HEY and it's notability has been established. No vote! on Mark Macey but he needs at least one more notable production (having a Wikipedia article) if not more to pass WP:CREATIVE, while the categories need to go to WP:CFD thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory remarks and per Atlantic306 Lubbad85 (☎) 23:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Beag

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

Over a year no sources, vague definition and nebulous name, etc. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Prior to this May 4th edit the article was about a specific place, albeit vague. It was probably the location in the Sound of Arisaig vicinity which was covered by this CEFAS report in 2015. For context see the map on PDF p23 and this description on p7: "Loch Beag is located within the Lochaber district of Highland Council on the west coast of Scotland. The loch comprises a small inlet at the head of Loch nan Uamh, which itself opens at the western end to the Sound of Arisaig. The Ardnish peninsula boarders the loch to the south. Loch Beag is 1.2 km in length, has a width of approximately 500 m and a maximum recorded depth of 21 m." and maybe the location for the Commons bird recording on the Common eider page. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this May 2018 news story and the photo in the corresponding BBC News item. AllyD (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the location can be positively determined, revert to an article about a specific loch. The current article is WP:NOT#DICT. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in Scottish toponymy, but may be too fine a detail for that article. The information that Loch Beag is a common name and means small can still be included in a specific article. SpinningSpark 14:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, we may as well make the article about the loch identified by AllyD (located at 56°53′10N 5°44'10W) since we have a source for that. It will probably be impossible to determine for sure what the original intention was unless the author comes forward, which seems unlikely. SpinningSpark 15:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Usually, I avoid substantial repurposing of an article during AfD discussion. In this case, however, as recent edits had created the circumstance of the AfD rationale, I have in this edit restored, extended and referenced the previous version. I had previously been considering whether to propose a redirect to Sound of Arisaig as a possible option, but I think the news and scientific report sources now in the article are sufficient for WP:GEOLAND. AllyD (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current state & sources are fine, possible subject shift notwhithstanding. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re to the point made by Epinoia below - the referenced "Scottish Sanitary Survey Report: Loch Beag" ^[1] is practically a monograph on the region, including sections on agriculture, wildlife, hydrography, meteorology... this is about as good as it gets for non/thinly-populated locations. There can be no question that "information beyond statistics and coordinates" (the actual requirement set out at WP:GEOLAND) exists in spades here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Scottish Sanitary Survey Report: Loch Beag (PDF). Food Standards Agency. June 2015. Retrieved 13 May 2019.

Delete - WP:GEOLAND demands "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" - two of the references cited are about contaminated shellfish, not about the geography or geology or history of Loch Beag itself - does not meet WP:NGEO which requires meeting WP:GNG (and even meeting GNG does not guarantee notability for places) - Epinoia (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguing that in-depth coverage about shellfish fishing in Loch Beag is not about Loch Beag is a weasel rationalisation of a conclusion already reached. Likewise for the Argument that in-depth coverage of sewage contamination in Loch Beag is not about Loch Beag. I also note that, contrary to your claim, the source referred to by Elmidae above devotes several pages to the geography and hydrography of the loch. SpinningSpark 07:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A finial on one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that we incorporate a gazetteer. Per WP:GEOLAND this article should not be deleted. If it is deficient in detail it should be merged with a more general article on local geography. I certainly wouldn't object to a merge but I think a stand-alone article is just fine. Thincat (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and Thincat's argument. SportingFlyer T·C 13:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed many [63] but the Gazetteer for Scotland only has an article on 2, one at Loch Glencoul and one at Bracadale but neither articles contain anything other than location. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samina Akbari

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

I don't really see anything in the cited sources (or online) that would indicate that the subject meets notability guidelines. The most significant independent coverage appears to be a positive review for her most notable work as part of an article about 13 short films at Sundance [64]. Her filmography as a whole doesn't appear to meet WP:NDIRECTOR, and based on the sources in the article we can barely confirm that she is a faculty member at SUNY, let alone actually meeting WP:NACADEMIC. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - hello I started this article a couple months ago. I don't know if it makes a difference or not, but the article was started as part of the Wikipedia:Meetup/Albany-Capital Region/ArtAndFeminism 2019, I've notified the event organizer. I'll be looking if their are any other sources to improve the article before I !vote for sure. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aspiring director. Has done some shorts that were at Sundance but nothing I can see at this point in time that passes GNG. Maybe with time...^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermina Etkin

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

I can't find any coverage in reliable sources beyond a few mere mentions in Argentinian newspapers. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beyard508 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Confirmed sock puppet user - striking vote. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe some day, but not there yet per GNG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Linkedin and Bandcamp are not good sources - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO -

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.

[SSR-1] Scottish Sanitary Survey Report: Loch Beag (PDF). Food Standards Agency. June 2015. Retrieved 13 May 2019.

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Asian Age (Bangladesh)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neelanjana Ray}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishita Vishvakarma}}