Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 May	13 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

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

Tettra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beverly Foit-Albert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~Delete..~~ 'see below for my modification of this: We need more coverage of women who are notable architects; the underlined words are both important--the first to indicate an area we need to emphasise, the second to indicate the basic qualification for an article. One non academic book does not meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and there is no indication that he work as an architect is notable . There's a list of awards and boards at an earlier version [1]. None of them indicate notability. (The who's who link thereis a little odd, since it goes to someone else's entry; I notice this was in the earliest version, and the fact that it goes to someone else's entry is obvious from the inserted reference [2], so this indicates a remarkable careless preparation of the article, ~~and I am embarrassed that this work might come from an event sponsored by WM-NYC~~ . DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the magazine I referenced, [www.wnyheritage.org/ Western New York]. Looks like a solid, regional (not just local) source. Unfotunately, online archive only goes back to 1997, and this was published in 1992. I read it via Proquest and was able to bring the article up to where I think it meets WP:BASIC. Noting also that her book is cited in other, serious-looking books on this topic [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC) E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There are, in fact, non local sources. AIArcitect has her as the architect-of-the-week [4], Builders Review, a trade journal, profiled her firm in 2014 Foit-Albert Associates Designing for the community and environment. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

'

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

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

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

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

Sascha Vogt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Austin Vaday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul G. Abel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magicrete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bruises (Chairlift song)

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

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

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

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

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

Comment I should note that this song is by far Chairlift's best known, having been featured in a 2008 iPod nano commercial. For this alone it has received a fair bit of media coverage, e.g. here and here. In March 2009, NPR's Tamara Vallejos even stated, "Brooklyn-based electro-pop trio Chairlift may not seem familiar to you at first, but no doubt you've heard its ridiculously catchy single, "Bruises," while flipping through TV channels." [5] In fact this song's appearance in this commercial is credited with making Chairlift itself become famous: "By 2009, though, they had become the reluctant poster kids for a popular wave of twee indie thanks to a ubiquitous Apple iPod Nano advert, which featured the cutesy bounce of their breakout song Bruises." [6] The song has also been remixed by Passion Pit. [7] Further coverage of the song: [8] [9] [10]. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: this is indeed the band's best-known, and best-selling, single – the article already notes that the song charted in the UK, Canada and Australia, and it charted in Germany too [11]. Charting in four different countries might be enough to demonstrate that it is notable, and the fact that IntoThinAir has demonstrated that there is some coverage of the song in reliable sources as well which could be turned into prose. Richard3120 (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chairlift (band) - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Women's fear of crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Place Names of Upper Deeside

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yolki-palki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indian Camp Creek Park

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Maxey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Up to Snuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loch Beag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Keep A finial on one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that we incorporate a gazetteer. Per WP:GEOLAND this article should not be deleted. If it is deficient in detail it should be merged with a more general article on local geography. I certainly wouldn't object to a merge but I think a stand-alone article is just fine. Thincat (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and Thincat's argument. SportingFlyer T·C 13:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed many [12] but the Gazetteer for Scotland only has an article on 2, one at Loch Glencoul and one at Bracadale but neither articles contain anything other than location. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Samina Akbari

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guillermina Etkin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]