< 11 May	13 May >

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tijuana Crime Scene[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBANDS. No indication of notability for over 5 years other than being a supergroup. If deleted Change of Venue (EP) is to be deleted as well, per WP:A9. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is not notable and there are no references for the topic. It does not meet WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lowenthal[edit]

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

it doesn't appear that this author meets the burden of WP:AUTHOR and the various micro prizes referenced don't seem to be of great significance. Graywalls (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Paternity Test is definitely notable, if not having a WP yet. The fact that he is covered in The Washington Post] and the The Boston Globe, along with the coverage of his earlier novel, Avoidance is enough to pass both WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-known novelist whose books Charity Girl and Paternity Test were widely reviewed. At a minimum, the reviews that come up in a simple gNews search ought to have been spotted by WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Graywalls Do you want to take a look, and maybe just tag it for sourcing? Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references need a good going-over, but I think he passes WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Onel5969 and E.M.Gregory. Daask (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy pass of WP:AUTHOR for creating multiple notable novels Avoidance, Charity Girl and The Paternity Test. In addition to what was found for the book, I also found WP:SIGCOV coverage of The Paternity Test on Lambda Literary [1] Huffington Post [2], Publishers Weekly [3], Newsday [4] and J. The Jewish News of Northern California [5], and that was just by a quick glance. Coverage for Charity Girl also exists at The NY Times [6], Publishers Weekly [7], The Boston Globe [8], PopMatters [9], Kirkus Reviews [10]. Tablet (magazine) [11]. Articles for both of these notable novels should be created. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it was onel5969 who found reviews above (sorry E.M. Gregory!) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Freddi Greco[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and NFOOTY (no senior appearances). BlameRuiner (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. Syndicater (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. copyvio — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel engine problems[edit]

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

This article meets the WP:DEL-REASON 6 and 7 criteria. The references in this article are not really that good, and they don't prove the text. In printed books on Diesel engines, there is no such thing as "Diesel engine problems", I suppose that is because describing _all_ possible problems would fill at least a dozen books. In its current state, the article mainly focusses on carbon build-up, which is a very specific problem of internal combustion engines (and it does not affect Diesel engines only). However, the description is mostly based upon original research, and I have never read anything like this in any book. -- Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article also created by blocked sockpuppet. Mccapra (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't doubt that an article at this title could be written – this came top of the search results. I don't think the nom is right about there being no such thing, there are plenty of books on diesel engine maintenance and troubleshooting. But the nom is right about the poor quality of this article. Plus WP:DENY applies in this case. SpinningSpark 22:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not meet WP:GNG. It is not notable to the point where it can be its own article. Syndicater (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm with Spinningspark that this topic is notable and could be written, but agree that this is a case for WP:DENY. It would need a total rewrite, so WP:TNT also applies. Daask (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Blatant copyvio of [12], [13], and [14]. Tagging for speedy deletion. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:20, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palinda Wickramasinghe[edit]

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

An unsuccessful candidate at a local election does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Insignificant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Nothing notable to suggest subject meets WP:ANYBIO. Obi2canibe (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person does not meet WP:GNG, and he is not too successful. Syndicater (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in city council elections — but this features neither a credible or well-sourced claim that he could be considered to have preexisting notability for other reasons, nor the depth of coverage it would take to single his candidacy out as somehow much more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons Nom states.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knighthood Village, Indiana[edit]

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

Hey, I found a source mentioning this one! [15] It's a "housing addition" of a dozen-ish homes (map) listed with other non-notable little neighborhoods like Dwain Village and Timber Brook Estates. No indication that this subdivision is notable with any substantive sources about it. Reywas92^Talk 19:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG and GEOLAND. Chetsford (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. Kudos to User:Reywas92.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Riddick[edit]

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

Delete, fails WP:PROF. Does not seem to have met the overall level of GNG either. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 1st paper, where she's 1st author "The corporate propensity to save" in htis gScholar search [16] is impressive, but overall she does not seem to meet WP:PROF. Please ping me to reconsider if you see persuasive evidence of notability. I'm always willing to take a second look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find any sources discussing Riddick's work as such with depth of coverage despite a reasonably thorough search of Google Scholar and Google Books. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Daask (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Even after discounting one !vote where a person !voted twice in error. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bangladesh Post[edit]

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

Non-notable newspaper. The cited sources are a press release and a mention in a 15-page government list of newspaper circulations. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, JSTOR, and ProQuest, including searches of Bengali sources, found no significant coverage. Does not meet WP:NMEDIA. Worldbruce (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMEDIA, almost no third party coverage to claim notability. ~ Nahid ^Talk 13:39, 5 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) 19:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The newspaper is very non-notable, and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.- Fail passes WP:NMEDIA -MA Javadi (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.- -MA Javadi (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can only vote once. Pilaz (talk) 09:53, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pixie Dust Tree[edit]

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

Entirely in-universe description written as if this were a real thing. Probably got notability issues in any case. SpinningSpark 18:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has very little references, is not a notable topic, and is written in-universe, like Spinningspark said. It also seems it's not written in a neutral point of view.--Syndicater (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The way this article is written is beyond problematic for the same reason as stated by the nominating editor. I understand phrasing can be corrected but it is a bad start. This topic is also certainly not encyclopedic and does not meet WP:GNG.Grapefruit17 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur not encyclopaedic and fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG is lacking here. ~GMCmc ^{{talk to me}} 09:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the above-mentioned issue with lack of context / in-universe style, the subject fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In universe issues and no obvious redirect target. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Daask (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Strangio[edit]

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

Chase Strangio appears to be a fairly unremarkable attorney working at the ACLU. Strangio's career is not particularly noteworthy. Strangio is simply just one of hundreds of staff attorneys at the ACLU.

Without making any comment on Strangio's competencies as a lawyer, nothing about this article justifies inclusion on Wikipedia. As described by the article and some brief research online, Strangio's career involves a few appearances on television that do not merit a breakaway Wikipedia article. If Chase Strangio satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, then virtually any lawyer who has practiced for over ten years and has been interviewed about their professions is going to satisfy Wikipedia. That is a vast number of individuals; for example, many corporate lawyers routinely make headlines by virtue of their name appearing on the docket of a prominent matter. Most do not have entries on Wikipedia, and that is good policy. First, Wikipedia would be actively hurt by the appearance of every lawyer attempting to create a biography for themselves on Wikipedia. It would needlessly commercialize the platform by allowing individuals to attempt to coopt Wikipedia's reputation for noteworthiness for themselves. Indeed, countless doctors, researchers, businesspersons, government employees and other people working in and in front of the public eye do not have articles, and should not, because Wikipedia is not LinkedIn and should remain that way.

In short, this is not a platform to advance the parochial interests of legal practitioners. Strangio's article dilutes Wikipedia and should be removed in its entirety.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemisprinciple (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this article, and have no affiliation or connection with Strangio whatsoever. I created the article because of Strangio's notability as an openly transgender lawyer and trans rights activist, notability which I believe is established with citations from reliable sources. Funcrunch (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nomination was not properly opened until today, so relisting to give a full seven days
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _survives 17:56, 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} 18:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep. Chase Strangio is a prominent lawyer and activist who has been the primary subject of multiple news articles in major news platforms (NBC News, Vice Magazine, Mother Jones, etc), clearly establishing notability. Strangio also has multiple significant and notable achievements and honors described in the article. This article easily meets WP:GNG. Philepitta (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Philepitta. Daask (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chase Strangio has been acknowledged by a number of news sources, and he has received several honors for his work. He is also the subject of several news articles from reputable sources, including Huffpost, NBC News, and The Nation. WP:BASIC states, “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” Strangio satisfies all of these requirements, and has also played an important role in at least three things: Gavin Grimm’s court case, Chelsea Manning’s court case, and LGBTQ+ rights in general. In addition, a quick search on WMFlabs shows that, although overall pageviews are low, they spike whenever he gets a major mention in the news; this shows that people are using this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagesdish (talk • contribs) 20:11, 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) 12:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dyne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see how he passes WP:BASIC or WP:GNG here. Not able to find a significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches (only directory listings or passing mentions), Techcrunch and Wired references have only 2 sentences about him (not WP:SIGCOV), PcMag has him just by a name drop. Completely agreed with Hellknowz in the first AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO as far as I can see - just being a company executive does not establish notability - Epinoia (talk) 20:45, 10 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) 17:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is he a powerful and active figure in the real world? Yes. Is there WP:SIGCOV anywhere? No. The only mention of his 10 rules of negotiation I see is in his official biographies. Someone else in 2012 reported being unable to find them as well. Daask (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BASIC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 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 delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Shantyman and his Bonnie Lass[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND, sources provided point to social media and their own website. Google search pulls no quality RS. Bkissin (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article violates WP:PRIMARY. Syndicater (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find independent RS recognition, just their own promotional listings. Appears to be an 8 year old promotional, vanity page by SPA editor. ShelbyMarion (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ShelbyMarion. Daask (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[edit]

(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,[17][18] a couple recaps of seminars organized by the paper,[19][20], 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[edit]

(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[edit]

(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[edit]

(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[edit]

(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[edit]

(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 [21]. 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)[edit]

(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[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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[edit]

(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[22][23][24], Post Today newspaper's website[25], Manager Online[26], and Lips magazine[27]. Most mainstream news coverage is about her winning season 4 of The Face Thailand (Thairath[28], Kom Chad Luek[29], Krungthep Thurakij[30], Khaosod[31], Praew magazine[32], Sudsapda magazine[33]). Others are various online variety news sites and celebrity websites (Dara Daily[34], Kapook[35][36], Great Star Digital[37]). 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[edit]

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

Demian Dressler[edit]

(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[edit]

(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[edit]

(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[edit]

(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[edit]

(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[edit]

(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[edit]

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

Diabetes (disambiguation)[edit]

(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[edit]

(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 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[edit]

(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[edit]

(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 [38] 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 [39].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) [40] 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 [41], 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[edit]

(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[edit]

(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[edit]

(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[edit]

(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/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[42], a column from Post Today newspaper (the archival of which appears to be broken so no text was archived)[43], a catalogue listing showing cover of said Attitude issue[44], and a talk show in which he appeared as a guest[45]. --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 delete. Sandstein 09:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artikal Music UK[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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[edit]

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

CanvasChamp[edit]

(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[edit]

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

Paul G. Abel[edit]

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

Women's fear of crime[edit]

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

Samina Akbari[edit]

(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 [46]. 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[edit]

(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.