Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 26

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) 00:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anubhav Anand

Anubhav Anand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Looks like a non-notable actor. No credible sources found! Exploreandwrite (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  WP:TOOSOON with only one notable role so far. IMDb shows he has another film credit but it has no article here, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Sekhar Acharjee

Chandra Sekhar Acharjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet
  WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as
  WP:NACTOR at this stage but may do in the future, thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firos Kunnamparambil

Firos Kunnamparambil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Bit of a technical special case. This one has been hanging out at the back of the NPP queue for a week, with every reviewer bypassing it. I believe part of the problem is that all the sources are in non-copyable form, thus they can't even be run through a translator. I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that from what I can glean from translating the reference titles only, we are looking at a lack of sufficient independent, in-depth coverage to fulfill

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails

That, I think, is a misinterpretation of the guideline, which refers to "one single event" - you will see it coming up for subjects who are only known for participating in one reality TV show etc. Being notable for a single capacity or profession, OTOH, is entirely fine and very common. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was a misinterpretation as I thought of a single event as a general thing. However, I still think the article should be deleted since the sources shows trivial coverage of the person. I did a quick translate (which is the only option I have when examining the sources) and I see that it talks about an issue and Kunnamparambil was interviewed, which does not meet

WP:GNG. The award sources may show substantial coverage, but it's not enough to meet GNG. INeedSupport ^:3 21:25, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by Viztor. (non-admin closure) —Rutebega (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Penal system in China

Penal system in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is way too archaic, and most of the content is simply historical and no longer applicable today. Viztor (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. AfD is not cleanup. Yes, the article has been tagged for updating for eight years, but cleanup does not have a deadline in Wikipedia. The topic is obviously notable and updating is a matter of regular editing. If the nominator can identify the outdated facts,
  WP:SOFIXIT applies. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Gene93k. Mccapra (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep topic is notable and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A quick question, given the status, is it ok to just delete and rewrite? I was thinking about editing, but I'm quite confused where to start as the entire structure of the article might need to be changed.Viztor (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it looks passes-
  WP:SOFIXIT --MA Javadi (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdrawn per discussion with Gene93k as I'm working on a
  draft intended to replace the current content. Viztor (talk) 18:54, 28 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avni Hasani

Avni Hasani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced BLP: No indication that he passes

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:59, 28 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mona, Anglesey

Mona, Anglesey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Mona is the name of an RAF station but there is neither village or hamlet with that name. The ordnance survey identifies "Mona" as the RAF station. Google maps may include Mona but much content there is user created with little oversight.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The name predates the RAF as this was the site of the Mona Inn for centuries. See here, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew D. --Doncram (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew and
  WP:GEOLAND. SpinningSpark 23:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Andrew and
  WP:GEOLAND. Britishfinance (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Andrew and
  WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Region 1, East Timor

Region 1, East Timor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

Region 2, East Timor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Region 3, East Timor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Region 4, East Timor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Region 5, East Timor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Also nominating

• Region 2, East Timor
• Region 3, East Timor
• Region 4, East Timor
• Region 5, East Timor

Not real regions, but made-up groupings of municipalities used inconsistently in a couple reports for statistical purposes. Citation 1 (pdf) defines them as Region 1 (Baucau, Lautem, Viqueque), Region 2 (Ainaro, Manatutu, Manufahi), Region 3 (Aileu, Dili, Ermera), Region 4 (Bobonaro, Cova Lima, Liquica), and Region 5 (Oecusse) while citation 2 uses Region 1 : Baucau, Lautem, Viqueque, Region 2 : Aileu, Ainaro, Manufahi, Region 3 : Dili, Ermera, Liquica, Manatuto, Region 4 : Bobonaro, Covalima, Special Region: Oecussi. Note differences in regions 2 and 3 and name of region 5. z Not mentioned in comprehensive government statistical documents [1] and [2] that discuss the actual Municipalities of East Timor. Reywas92^Talk 20:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Groan. I think there may well be hundreds more like this; for the tiny villages in Africa type of stub there is an argument (however weak I think it is) that the stub helps, but for these artificial groupings it is quite clearly ridiculous. I think though that it is important to be careful: saying "made up" is misleading, since this normally means "made up by an editor". Perhaps we could have a centralised discussion somewhere, (or an essay to link to), with a careful explanation of the exact problem. Basically it is the expansion of just any list of items to an "article" for each item saying it is a member of the list. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:51, 30 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. ST47 (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Pritchard

Gordon Pritchard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 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 delete. ST47 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinay Berde

Abhinay Berde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^Talk 18:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SPEEDY KEEP and Comment goes here; Abhinay has got no coverage due to his father, he has done 3 Marathi Films and three of them are commercially successful, reliable sources are cited in the article. His father is Comedy king Laxmikant Berde thus his name will come always in every news article, just like Tiger Shroff will always be known as the son of Jackie Shroff does that mean Tiger has done no notable work? he is known because of his father? it's the same case, Abhinay is wildly known and his films have done in theatres. Please google Abhinay Berde and tell me you got only articles about his father not independent I'm giving some independent articles below.

1 Independent article about his relationship 2 Shares a screen with his parents (mother) Independent article on his recent release 3 Independent article on his recently released and currently in theatres film. Abhinay is the lead actor. 4 Independent article co-actor praising about Abhinay (not a press release) 5 Abhinay's second film as lead was about to be on TV article is independent and reliable for his contribution in the Marathi Films.

also sharing direct news section link from the Google Here you go --

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Ravensfire (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Ravensfire (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The creator's pattern of editing is a concern. Deb (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per non good writing style also it's locks living people biography Goodd-002 ^(chatme) 07:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  What does "it's locks living people biography" mean? -- Begoon 17:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is about Zaan Khan, who is an Indian actor but there is a lack of Reliable sources in this article. Goodd-002 ^(chatme) 19:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Was that an answer to my question? Because I still have no idea what "it's locks living people biography" means. -- Begoon 01:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added reliable sources, did clean up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:4223:E8B8:0:0:2373:58A0 (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Deb. I share those concerns. There are a couple of dubious accounts creating very weakly sourced, poorly written, promotional articles in that particular niche topic area. Further investigation would probably be a good thing. -- Begoon 01:40, 29 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Parker (child actress)

Nico Parker (child actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Has only appeared in one notable film. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: possibly a
  WP:BIO. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and
  stop making articles like this for God’s sake. She’s a child. Trillfendi (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Could be
  WP:NACTOR. She only contributed majorly in one notable show, which is Dumbo. INeedSupport ^:3 03:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per the arguments above. At the moment she would not seem to meet notability requirements. It may well be that this will change in the future, and at such a time an article could be created, but this does not alter the fact that at the moment an article is premature. Dunarc (talk) 22:20, 30 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.

Aviad Cohen

Aviad Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete - Only know for one thing, a parody song that was never a hit nor went viral. He put out a few non-notable albums. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Article because it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per User:Cavarrone from the old afd discussion. The sources just need to be integrated Ceethekreator (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:BIO. Most of the sources cited by Cavarrone in the old AFD are dead links. A search brings up 2 articles from The Forward and one from Haaretz, but none of them have enough biographical or career history to make an article out of. Yoninah (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete He is not notable as a musician, and practicing more than one religion does not make someone notable either. BneiBrakPhone (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  Wikipedia:MUSICBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:29, 31 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 withdrawn by nominator.(non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salty Dog (band)

Salty Dog (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I nominated this for speedy deletion a bit ago and it was declined. Am now running it through AfD.

The sourcing here is not adequate: three of the references are to a website called "Sleazeroxx", and as near as I can tell from the website, it consists only of a series of posts by readers (their "about us" page just reiterates their subject area and says nothing about staff or editorial oversight, which am fairly certain are non-existent). The single reference to Allmusic is problematic because Allmusic is just that: it covers all music, without discrimination and without regard to notoriety or significance. When I try to go to the Discogs site, I get a long page of JSON code that makes no sense to me. Finally, the MelodicRock reference reads pretty much like a press release, or like it was written by the band itself: the site had no information at all about who generates its content or edits it or decides what to include or what not. A Google News search turns up nothing about them in the first few pages, at least nothing that I spotted. A loose necktie (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. A loose necktie (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All Music is not problematic at all, it is an established WikiProject Music reliable source as listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and there are thousands of music artists on Wikipedia who do not get a biography or reviews there (which are written by professional music critics). I agree about the other two sites and will look for extra sources later, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Allmusic is a reliable source, and it doesn't give coverage to every artist. Given the band split up 8 years ago, why would you expect to find results in Google News (which only includes recent news articles)? Where else have you looked? --Michig (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant coverage here, here, and also some coverage in Martin Popoff's book The Big Book of Hair Metal: The Illustrated Oral History of Heavy Metal's Debauched Decade, with almost certainly more in print from the 80s/90s, and their album for Geffen Records charted on the Billboard 200, as confirmed by Joel Whitburn's books on Billboard's album charts. --Michig (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the article needs a serious rewrite, but there's no doubt the group passes
  WP:BAND. As noted by Michig, their album charted on the Billboard 200 [15]. They were the main feature and on the cover of issue #274 (27 January 1990) of Kerrang! magazine – they were also featured in issue #247 (15 July 1989) and #272 (13 January 1990), as well as having a song on a two-track flexidisc given away by the magazine in issue #280 (10 March 1990)... with all this promotion by the magazine it's almost certain the album was also reviewed in Kerrang! It was certainly reviewed in Metal Hammer, in the issue 29 January 1990 (they gave it 4/5). Sources clearly exist in print media of 1989/1990. Richard3120 (talk) 16:32, 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geeta Mehta

Geeta Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I found the opposite from nom's "Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online." A search also led me to the opposite of the nom's statement that the subject is a "Run-of-the-mill businesswoman." As an example of a search, the subject is included in a "who’s who of architects and thought leaders" in the 2017 full-length documentary Citizen Jane: Battle for the City. Also, in January 2019, the subject was named (but declined because of an upcoming election) by the Government of India as a recipient of the Padma Shri award for distinguished contribution to literature and education. The article has been cleaned up but still needs some work. As it stands now, however, with the reliable sources in the article that show notability, the subject easily passes
  WP:SIGCOV. A "speedy keep" may be warranted. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:HEYMANN upgrade by User:AuthorAuthor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - not addressing the issue of promotion in the article, but clearly passes
  WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 30 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Kyle Young

Jacob Kyle Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Hello. An actor who clearly does not pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the Article. I looked the Article and find the above claim for deleting the article isn't fair.Forest90 (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes
  WP:NACTOR as he has played in multiple movies and has been featured on reliable news sources which we can clearly see in references and i think nominator was not aware of that. Owlf 19:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Owlf Which of those sources are reliable, independent, in depth coverage that you think I've "missed"? Praxidicae (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I checked the URL again and find some content are removed and links not working but few I can see here [[16]],[[17]] and as per his IMDB he has played on multiple movies. 13:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Owlf Being in a movie does not make anyone notable, it means they have had several jobs. Being in several films also doesn't make someone notable unless the films are notable and the role is significant. That is not the case here. This is a vanity PR piece and not independent, reliable or in depth and This is basically a business hobby blog and not independent or reliable. Praxidicae (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The entire profile of this article is alarming. The creator of this article had been inactive for 5 years and never created an article before this - indeed the editing area is completely unrelated to the kind of content that had been previously been editing suggesting some combination of UPE/compromised account. This actor does not pass NACTOR - has no significant roles (only supporting roles). There is a lot of coverage out there about him but not those which meet GNG it's a lot of press releases. Further the article itself has issues as it attempts to show notability by relating Young to topics which are notable. I would ask Owlf and Forest90 to reconsider their !votes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49:, I rod your comment and check some of your claims. But if I want to change my vote it will be merge the article, I looked to article again and saw the actor played a new role in a 2019 movie (and had played many roles before). It's can keep by merging but deleting whole article is not the best option.Forest90 (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forest90 To which article are you proposing it is merged to? Praxidicae (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any notable roles in notable films. Many of the wikilinks to films in the article were clearly to the wrong films (several of the movies were described as short films in the articles, but the wikilinks pointed to full-length films or in one case an Iranian film he was clearly not in). I don't see any
  reliable sources, just press releases. Smells like paid-promotion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete BIO, GNG. Graywalls (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

LetterWise

LetterWise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Complete

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete Fails
  talk) 01:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

To quote Dorcas Lane ... My one weakness is ... that I naturally ignore sales pitch language. Well at least I think I do. If the wordwise entry makes things worse feel free to say so and back it out. The article has received no love whatsoever. Reading about Letterwise/Wordwise there was the significant MacKenzie/Kober/Smith3/Jones/Skepner paper "LetterWise: Prefix-based Disambiguation for Mobile Text Input" which is quite often cited by other research. Efforts to market it for Mobile(cell) phones seem to have failed with T9/Mulit-tap etc retaining the market referred to in More power to the thumb Economist 22 june 2002 p11 & 9783039114511 pp86.87. However there was some traction in DECT/cordless and Iridium satellite phones probably due to memory. Eatoni got into a massive lawsuit with

RIM(Blackberry) following another one and a make up before that. More recently Eatoni seems to have continued with some phone apps and multiple language stuff and [18] is interesting but not sure how much is egged. Most of the isn't in the article. I might try tweaking the toning the apparent usage a bit ... if I make things worse revert it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)  Done ... knowing me not perfect but have highlighted where claims were being made.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Now  Not done as assessed as spam below. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

*I've a review. I can't be sure just spam is incorrect. In fact it is probably an incorrect statement. I think I had identified and moderated over-egged claims. While I can see you are not

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP so perhaps a despamming pass is necessary at some point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

  Sources with quotes

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

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

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

  ]

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

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

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

• Keep. Per
  WP:PRESERVED in WP. Britishfinance (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Bob Singh Dhillon

Bob Singh Dhillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete Fails to meet
  talk) 01:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment – He has been amply covered by the mainstream media in India and Canada, but most of that coverage seems like in the form of interviews (with seemingly inadequate independent coverage), e.g. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], etc. But a few articles seem to have decent amount of independent coverage, such as this one of The Sunday Guardian. Anyway, this perception of mine is based on a cursory search, and will look again at this in a day or two. BTW, is anyone familiar with this magazine? - NitinMlk (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Arvind Krishna (actor)

Arvind Krishna (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not qualifying

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment I don't believe that not knowing a language means one must nominate the article for deletion. This discussion would be proper at the talkpage of the article. Thanking you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 02:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Tiven2240, There is hardly any coverage on the subject in English or Telugu. while nominating I had done my searches but, if someone could enlight me on that, I am ready and we can close this AFD as keep, But I don't think we would find much. this AFD is one way to seeks input from the community. thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NARTIST? QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:25, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Foit-Albert

Beverly Foit-Albert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

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 
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: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 [30]. 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 [31], 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 [32].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC) E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 16 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 [33], 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]

• 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milutin Dostanić bibliography

Milutin Dostanić bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article created by subject's son shortly after Dostanić passed away. Article PRODded with reason "All academics publish and those publications can be found in multiple databases. There's no reason for WP to repeat this, LinkedIn or ResearchGate are more appropriate for that." Article dePRODded with reason "I see no reason for deleting this article and list of this person's academic publications. All actors act in movies, you have databases (like imdb) regarding their filmographies, yet you can still find their separate article filmograhies on Wikipedia." The situation is not the same, however. While virtually all movies will be notable in itself, only very few academic articles in general, and none in this list in particular, are notable in and of itself. This list has previously been deleted from the author's biography by Drmies. WP is not for posting CVs. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• PS I forgot to mention that the article on Milutin Dostanić is also at AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Dostanić would probably not pass
  WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply here. D.Lazard (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Oops, forgot to mention that he's currently also at AfD, see PS above. --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--impressive piece of work, but unfortunately not for here. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This sort of indiscriminate listing is not what Wikipedia is for. We should only keep curated lists of the most significant publications of an academic, when there are adequate published reliable sources to tell us which ones those are, and in most cases they should be short enough that they can be included directly in the subject's biography article instead of overwhelming it. For a more or less complete listing of any mathematician's publications, in many cases with independent reviews of the publications, go to MathSciNet instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, issues addressed in comments above, and
  WP:OVERLAP. Even if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milutin Dostanić (2nd nomination) results in "Keep," which looks unlikely, this article is redundant and would be merged. — Satori Son 21:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom --
  ping me) 01:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 01:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 01:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H2hos

H2hos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is sourced to a couple of local news pieces. I can find a couple of other mentions elsewhere but nothing looking like reliable sources. I’m not sure this group is notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article was written by User:Ekellyekelly, a member of the group. I don't see the routine local human-interest articles as establishing notability for the short-lived local performing group. Reywas92^Talk 07:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.
  WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. The coverage of the group never really extended past local interest pieces, and even then was not substantial. Rorshacma (talk) 23:19, 31 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Western Khatlon

Western Khatlon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no such region. Khatlon Region of Tajikistan is divided into districts. On occasion, some districts can be referred to a group of western districts (and not necessarily the same ones), but this is not a subdivision in any sense. There is no intermediate level division in Tajikistan (as well as in most former Soviet countries) between region and district. Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Eastern Khatlon should also be included here, using the same sources that have merely unofficial directional groupings. Reywas92^Talk 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Other regions, such as western Khatlon and Gharm, were seen at risk, ...^[1] The region is informally split into Western Khatlon (comprising Kurgan-Tube and the Kofarnihon and Vakhsh river valleys) and Eastern Khatlon (Kulyob and the Kyzylsu and Yakhsu river valleys).^[2] Western Khatlon Districts: Bokhtar District, Dzhami (Jomi) District, Jilikul District, Khuroson District (Ghozimalik District), Nosiri Khusrav District (Beshkent District), Qabodiyon District, Qumsangir District, Rumi District (Kolkhozobod District), Sarband District, Shahrtuz District, Vakhsh District and Yovon District. (Khatlon_Region#Districts) It is never mentioned in article as a political division or a region with finite boundaries. Shevonsilva (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not an official division in any way. Anybody can pick up a group of districts and call them western. Someone else will call other group of districts western.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your response. It is never mentioned in article as a political division or a region with finite boundaries. These may be commonly used partitions and have more weights to geographical divisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shevonsilva (talk • contribs)

  No, it is not a commonly used particion. It is a partition used in a book you happen to have access while stamping your microstubs. We had similar discussions before, and I strongly advised you to only write about subjects you know what you are talking about. This is clearly not such a subject.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]