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. as meets WP:SIGCOV, I'm closing this early as it was only nominated a month ago.... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unidan[edit]

Unidan (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)

Non notable internet forum super user. Byates5637 (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - Not only is this the 5th AfD in the past few months, there is nothing new in the nominator's rationale that is any different than the other AfDs. Without explaining how the article is about a "non-notable" subject, the sources in the article refute that claim, especially without any elaboration on how Fox News and Vice supposedly do not show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets the WP:SIGCOV standard, and has passed multiple prior afd debates, establishing community consensus... Roberticus talk 08:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plenty of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Integrated College[edit]

National Integrated College (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)

Normally, schools are deemed automatically notable; but this one has remained unsourced for over three years now. Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The proper remedy for an unsourced article is to add sources, not to nominate it for deletion. Did you conduct a search for such sources, as required by WP:BEFORE? According to that page, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." -71.112.198.23 (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep – Educational institutions are notable --Hackerboyas (Talk) 05:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this policy? Can you point me to it? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The second bullet point at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is the relevant one. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Highbeam (subscription reqd) turns up mention in two articles from Kathmandu Post, one about an ex-student [1], one about the institution's participation in a wider event [2]. Neither is worth adding to the article, but they do provide verification; no reason for this not to follow the normal outcome for such articles. AllyD (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Highbeam has just two mentions – one only indirectly as the result of a student, and the other about a fair for Nepali secondary schools. Neither mentions the school in the opening three paragraphs visible without subscription. Google search turns up social media, automatic-inclusion lists, self-published stuff like job openings, and indirect mentions in résumés, etc. I can't find anything that could be used to add any useful content to the article or cite as a source for anything other than maybe its rough address. WP:NSCHOOL is confusing (as to the meaning of "this guideline"), but seems to mean it must pass either WP:NGO or WP:GNG. I say it passes neither. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit) WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that consensus is that there must be evidence that it simply exists and operates, which seems to be true. I don't know what purpose an article like this serves, but the precedent seems clear. Changing my vote (with objection). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit 2) WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says "most ... outcomes" and also that it is only an essay and when it conflicts with policy or guidelines, to respect the latter. WP:ORGSIG seems to directly contradict it, with "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists".

  In the 13 years its been open, it's been mentioned just twice (and only indirectly and as a member of a larger group of schools) that we can find. In the 3 years its been tagged as requiring more sources, nobody has found any, nor found any information to expand it beyond a one-line stub. There is, of course, nothing keeping it from being created again if things change. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a verified secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this college educates up to and including Bachelor degree level that puts it at a higher status than, for example, US high schools that are generally considered notable. It is hardly surprising that not many sources can be found on the Internet in English for a school in Nepal! To avoid systemic bias local sources in the Nepali language should be examined. When, as here,we have a likely notable subject we don't delete rather we seek improvement. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That had occurred to me. I looked at the school's website to get its name in Nepali (or Newari) and found their website to be entirely in English (even the masthead and logo), which is somewhat unusual, and indicates to me that their primary language of instruction is English. I would therefore expect coverage in English sources.

  Still, I searched for "राष्ट्रिय एकीकृत" which is what Google Translate came up with for "National Integrated" in Nepali. "College" did not translate, though it showed an alternate of कलेज, similar to the Hindi कॉलेज. Bing Translate doesn't have Nepali, but "राष्ट्रीय एकीकृत कॉलेज" in Hindi. Searches of various combinations of these yielded pages that, when translated back to English, were unrelated to the school (though did usually contain "national integrated").

  Perhaps someone can comment on the correct name of the school in Nepali? Or Newari? There appears to be significant internet presence of Nepali media, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to find coverage. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is college of Nepal, it uses its English name. Many of the colleges use English names such as: Liverpool International College, Prime College, Barsha College and so on. Finding sources regarding the schools and colleges of Nepal are much harder as there are less websites (noted to be reliable on wikipedia). As the above user found source of HSEB affiliation, it credibly indicates notability. Hackerboyas (Talk) 02:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you have asked its Nepali translation, it would be राष्ट्रिय एकीकृत कलेज, the word college is just written in Devanagari script and is a agantuk word (copied from other languages than Sanskrit). Hackerboyas (Talk) 03:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So it is as I searched it, both with and without the "loan word" for college. I still didn't find anything relevant. Perhaps someone who reads Nepali can verify (i.e. search for "राष्ट्रिय एकीकृत कलेज" and see if you find anything that qualifies as an WP:RS).

As far as HSEB affiliation, it seems likely that, just like other places in the world, being a member of such an organization is a requirement, not an option. How many similar schools are not members? Between the issues with the encoding of the HSEB spreadsheets and the bad links on their site(s), I had to give up, and was unable to even verify their affiliation. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: Check the PDF Affiliated HSS 2069/70

You can find in 3192, college code: 7622 -- निक उ.मा.वी which is short form written in Nepali language — NIC. This proves it is affiliated to HSEB. Cheers! Hackerboyas (Talk) 02:18, 27 September 2014 (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, with no prejudice against further discussion regarding merge or redirect. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reality distortion field[edit]

Reality distortion field (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 topic is unique to Steve Jobs and the majority of the text is already on the page devoted to Steve Jobs. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We need a policy related nomination for deletion. I cannot fathom the rationale here. It is a neologism, for sure, yet it seems to be in reasonably widespread and cited use. The article does need better references, yes, but it seems capable of being better referenced. Fiddle Faddle 23:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the argument is that this is not a notable topic in and of itself; it's merely an epithet used primarily about Jobs, and very secondarily about other people in and out of Apple; but has no notability independent of Jobs. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Steve Jobs, the content that is not already in that article is 1) not reliably sourced or 2) about "Reality distortion field" only via WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • another option that would be more work is rename and expand into something along the lines of Public perception of Steve Jobs-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) If most of the content is already on the Steve Jobs page, then Merge is a better option.--Auric talk 23:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep seems reasonable as a standalone topic. And it meets the GNG handily. Protonk (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it meet WP:NEO? there are uses of, but not commentary about-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Since it also has a sourced attribution to Clinton, merging or redirecting with Jobs is not appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the phrase when applied to Clinton is via a blog, not a reliable source and for clinton it has a completely different meaning - for Jobs its a positive meaning reflecting his charisma in talking people into his dreams; when applied to Clinton it is a pejorative insinuating that everything surrounding him is a field of lies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steve Jobs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Steve Jobs is already at 10,000 words-- some content has to go to subarticles. WP:NOTPAPER. Darmokand (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge and redirect, there is really no valid rationale for a deletion here, at best a merge proposal could be in order, but the article sounds as a legitimate spinout. Cavarrone 13:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete and salt Speedy deleted as an attack page. Salted due to the face that there have now been 3 creations of this article that had serious BLP violations. If someone can make a BLP compliant version in draft space then that can be considered. Chillum Need help? Type ((ping|Chillum)) 23:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benn Zarin McCord[edit]

Benn Zarin McCord (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)

Had this a sa prod until I just saw how off this is-attack page? a hoax? Considering this guy was born in 2000-none of this makes sense. Wgolf (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G3. Article was deleted by INeverCry and CactusWriter per G3 in april and January 2013 respectively. Here is the deletion log.Wikicology (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-Yeah I agree-it also seems like a borderline attack page even. Once I noticed the birth year and the years active it seemed impossible. Wgolf (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as is a complete hoax. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2014 (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. Coverage is clearly on the thin side, but this discussion hinges on that one award. Without agreement on that matter, I cannot find consensus to delete. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April O'Neil (pornographic actress)[edit]

April O'Neil (pornographic 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)

AVN award (twitter queen) not significant award and XBIZ award (girl/girl actress) scene related. No independent biographical detailed sourced to reliable sources for this person. was one of 16 porn actresses to appear in a documentary and is not mentioned by name in the review except being listed as one of those interviewed. As an interview the film is a primary source and does not therefore count.

What all this leaves us is a BLP without any decent sourcing and a subject who does not meet the GNG and/or PORNBIO... Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The Girl/Girl Performer of the Year win is not scene-related, and the source proves this. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That "source" proves nothing of the kind. It is simply a list of the awards, with no content whatever explaining/describing the criteria by which award recipients are chosen. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A list of winners from the official website proves nothing? That's like saying including a mention of someone winning an Emmy sourced from emmys.com proves nothing. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're deliberately misquoting me, Erpert, and that's disruptive and dishonest. Just stop it. I said it proved nothing regarding the claim you cited it for, and you haven't disputed it. Tendentiously trying to muddy the waters rather than reasonably discussing the issues is grossly inappropriate behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Erpert provided a list of the 2014 XBIZ Award winners as evidence that "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" is not a scene-related category. You stated that the list proved nothing and that we should disregard it. I'm not sure why I should have to explain this when it is so obvious, but if O'Neil would have received that award for a particular sex scene, which she didn't, the film would be mentioned in the list along with her co-star(s) and the production company. We know this because all of the scene-related categories on that list mention the film, all of the participants in the scene, and the production company. O'Neil is listed under the "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" category all by herself. That list does prove that "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" is not a scene-related category, although I'm not even sure we should be debating this. I mean, what could possibly make you think that a category with the phrase "Performer of the Year" in it's name is scene-related? Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Granted, HW didn't call the win scene-related (it was actually Spartaz who did that), but he did !vote "delete" lower in this discussion by claiming that the award is a "token award for a few of [XBIZ's] clients/advertisers who didn't show up in any other categories". You have used this kind of argument in several AfDs before, HW; the problem is, you have yet to actually prove that that is the case. Do you or someone you know work for XBIZ? Is there a page on xbiz.com detailing how and why categories are created? Basically, no matter how many times you state that opinion (and no matter how many other people might agree with you), if you can't provide proof of that claim, all it is is, well, just that: an unsourced opinion, which doesn't really hold much weight against sources that the other participants in the discussion provide. (SN: Disagreeing with you is disruptive and dishonest? Yeah, good luck with that one.) Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO. Has two well-known and significant industry awards. Her AVN Award for "Twitter Queen" is indeed significant. It's an AVN Award, the "Oscars of porn". And it is not a scene-related or ensemble category, which are the only categories excluded by PORNBIO. She was also selected as the winner of that category through fan voting. What better evidence than that is there that she also passes the second criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER which states "Has a large fan base"? And her XBIZ Award for "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" is not scene related. She was given that award for her entire body of work throughout 2013, not for a particular sex scene. Rebecca1990 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, please stop making deliberately false statements in your attempts to influence deletion debates. You know perfectly well that consensus in the lengthy and exhausting debates over PORNBIO was that both the award category and the awarding organization were taken into account in determining whether a particular award met the "well-known"/"significant" standard, and that scene-ensemble/related categories were not the only exclusions. You pushed your view at length in discussions regarding "MILF" category awards, and it was rejected; as User:Morbidthoughts, who is hardly one of the anti-porn editors you complain about often enough, stated in one of those discussions, there are "insignificant token award[s]", even from AVN, that fail the PORNBIO test. And, by the way, what is your source for the claim that the "Girl-Girl Performer" award is not scene-related? It certainly can't be given for her "entire body of work", because a quick check of IAFD listings shows "girl-girl" scenes are a pretty small part of it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "making deliberately false statements"? I'm simply stating the fact that PORNBIO does not exclude any other categories besides scene related and ensemble ones. That is not a false statement, it's the truth. And it's going to take a better argument than WP:I just don't like it to exclude any other ones. Several adult industry A-listers have already been deleted under the current, unfair PORNBIO guideline, so why do you insist on trying to make it even stricter? And then you act surprised when people wonder if you're anti-porn. The fact is that numerous articles on notable porn stars have been deleted this year, and it was you who started most of those AfD's and PROD's. I would really like to know why articles on non notable porn stars who have become anti-porn activists, such as Nadia Styles and Holly Ryder, never get deleted, but articles on notable pro-porn porn stars do. And you pointed out that IAFD lists very few girl/girl scenes for O'Neil. Here's the thing: IAFD is a database of adult films that have been released on DVD or VHS (back in the day). IAFD does not keep track of internet only porn scenes. Recently, IAFD has started to add internet only scenes from Brazzers and Kink.com (highlighted in yellow in performer filmography lists), but they haven't finished doing that yet and they continue to focus primarily on expanding their database with DVD titles. Perhaps O'Neil appeared in several more girl/girl scenes in 2013 which aren't listed on IAFD because they were internet only. And even if she did do less girl/girl scenes in 2013 than all the other Girl/Girl Performer of the Year nominees did, why does that matter? All this does is demonstrate that these adult industry awards are about quality, not quantity. You said that O'Neil did not attend the ceremony to accept her award. I don't know if this is true or not, but what does that have to do with the awards significance? In fact, this just proves that your claim that XBIZ is a "PR business" whose awards and nominations are "purchased" by their "clients", is false. Do you really think that someone would pay to win award and then not show up to accept it? Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The XBIZ Girl/Girl Performer win does meet the letter of WP:PORNBIO. However other winners under niche categories (e.g. Bridgette B - Unsung Siren) have been deleted as not notable. Completely fails GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you bring up Unsung awards because those aren't the ones we are discussing here, but I just wanted to point out that there is an equal amount of Keep vs. Delete votes in Bridgette B's AfD. Bridgette B is currently the only AVN, XRCO, or FAME award recipient of an underrated/unsung award without a WP article. The category may seem controversial, but they is no consensus to exclude it from PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There appears to be no dispute that the subject fails the GNG by a country mile. The "Twitter Queen" award, like all the AVN Fan Awards, fails the well-known/significant component of PORNBIO; the awards are (allegedly) determined by a website poll, which allows you to vote not just multiple times but daily, as well as allowing anyone who can access the voting site via dynamic IP addressing to vote an effectively unlimited number of times. The results of such a poll can hardly be said to be significant, the outcome is easy to manipulate, and such a survey is generally regarded as worthless. The "Girl-Girl Performer Award" is neither well-known nor significant; XBIZ created it just this year as a token award for a few of its clients/advertisers who didn't show up in any other categories. (And, according to IAFD. O'Neal performed in only four such scenes in 2013, making one wonder just what the award criteria are.) Another point against significance: she reportedly didn't even bother to attend the awards ceremony. The bottom line is (or should be) this: she by all accounts fails the GNG, and, if she passes PORNBIO, it's a narrow and technical pass at best. We often enough delete mainstream performers who technically pass NACTOR (for example, performers with multiple recurring but minor roles on soap operas. There's no basis for special, favorable treatment for porn performers. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "XBIZ created [the category] just this year as a token award for a few of its clients/advertisers who didn't show up in any other categories." Two questions:

1. How do you know that's why it was created?
2. Why does it matter if it was created this year? (And if you can't respond civilly or without using bold print, don't respond at all.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it should be kept, but stating why would really help. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. One other thing that should be mentioned though, is that in spite of all the porn bios that have been brought to AfD, I have yet to see one deleted on an actor who not only won a notable porn award, but the award win was even mentioned in the delete rationale. It didn't work with Capri Anderson ([3]), it didn't work with Leilani Leeane ([4]), and I doubt it's going to work here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above - Passes GNG & PORNBIO, Also I echo Erpert's concerns - Is there any award on these notable ? .... At this rate there aint gonna be any porno model articles left here. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did you ask? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah was away with the fairies! –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Found more evidence of her notability; her popularity is noted by at least two mainstream media outlets (Complex & LA Weekly). I have added them to the article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Erpert and sources found by Rebecca1990.--cyclopia^speak! 09:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Lior (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep This is a tough one. Nonetheless, I am inclined to believe the Xbiz award is a significant industry award, and not a scene or assembly award. Thus, it complies with the letter of WP:PORNBIO. Furthermore, Ms. O'Neil has garnered some coverage in non-industry publications, indicating she has some notability.-- danntm ^T _C 06:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Concur with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Finnegas (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Found more mainstream coverage in Rolling Stone and Complex. I have added the sources to the article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PORNBIO and GNG. Not just the award, the subject got reliable mainstream coverage (Complex Magazine, Rolling Stone and particularly LA Weekly) and was portrayed on a very notable documentary film alongside some of the most notable adult performers of the 2000s, something which sounds a strong indicator of notability. Unconvincing arguments for deletion. Cavarrone 18:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 22:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I find Erpert's argument persuasive. -71.112.198.23 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Award-winner and coverage in reliable sources. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no reason to regard her XBIZ award as not meeting the requirements of WP:PORNBIO. The only case against her seems to be that it is in a new category, but the other substantively similar XBIZ award categories are regarded as meeting the standard, and it would be silly to delete articles every time they change or rename the categories only to have someone rewrite them the following year when the award is no longer new. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Princeflorishlimited[edit]

Princeflorishlimited (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)

Notability, written like an advertisement. Llightex (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Tagged for A7/G11 Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:40, 20 September 2014 (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. Of note is that the nomination does not provide a valid rationale for deletion, and that if a new article is to be created, a title such as Connected Baby (2015 film) may be used. Furthermore, the WP:COI concerns herein may need to be further addressed. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Connected Baby[edit]

The Connected Baby (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)

Name clash with upcoming project connected baby, by film co-creator Suzanne Zeedyk Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Joni.Bendall You want to delete this article because your employer is planning on using the name for a different project? Crow^Caw 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Affirmative. You'll have to forgive me, I am new here - having read through, I didn't think my intention contravened community guidelines. My employer is co-creator and owner of the rights to the film the article describes. As you rightly mentioned, the name is being used for an upcoming project. Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joni.Bendall That is actually not a reason to delete this article. If the new project ends up having an article here as well, it will be disambiguated so that both articles can exist. Crow^Caw 22:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep #1 due to the above. Striking vote since it doesnt qualify. No opinion on the article itself, just the nom struck me as out of process. Crow^Caw 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is actually a bit of a concern here about this film potentially failing WP:NFILM. Of the sources on the article, only one of them is actually a WP:RS that can show notability, as the other two are pretty much WP:PRIMARY sources since one is a notification of a screening by the film festival itself and the other is from an organization that funded the film. The original deletion rationale is invalid, but it actually brings up a pretty big concern of notability overall and may still end up being deleted... which also casts a bit of a doubt of notability on the other project that is supposed to be added. I'd probably suggest leaving this open over the concerns of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sourcing isn't the strongest, but there is enough here to warrant a keep. If there was an article on Zeedyk herself, I'd recommend that this get merged and redirected to her, but there isn't. However I do want to stress very, very strongly that I would highly recommend that Joni.Bendall either not create it herself or that she go through AfC to make the article because of the strong COI here. I'd also really recommend that you read over our guidelines on editing in general, conflict of interest, notability, and so on. As a COI editor you will be expected to know our guidelines better than a casual editor, as every edit you make will be heavily scrutinized. This may occasionally seem like overkill, but Wikipedia has had a very long history of people trying to use it to promote themselves, either by editing themselves or by hiring people to edit for them as part of a publicity crew. You will need to be able to state/follow policy without misquoting or misinterpreting it, which is especially important because again- we have a history of people doing just that in an attempt to keep an article. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's not, but doing this is a surefire way to ensure that people assume that you are only here to promote. In the cases of where it's unintentional, it's had the unfortunate effect of having people write off editors completely and sometimes people can get pretty brusque in their speech. Sometimes it can even affect how much people are willing to go to help you. I wish it was otherwise, but it happens and I've seen pages get deleted that might have otherwise been salvageable. I know this all sounds a little harsh and a little WP:BITE-y, but I really want to stress how important it is that you go over our guidelines as a whole. Some of it pertains to this article, as it had some fairly promotional WP:PEACOCK type phrasing in it, but I also want to give you a little head's up on the other project that you are intending to add to Wikipedia, as I didn't see much out there that didn't pertain to the 2011 film. Just because a project exists doesn't automatically mean that it belongs on Wikipedia (WP:ITEXISTS), so you may want to be cautious about adding the new article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep invalid AFD and close per cogent analysis by Tokyogirl79 and the obvious WP:COI of nominator... who should go study WP:PRIMER and WP:NAU and more importantly WP:DEL#REASON. As this 2011 film already exists, your production company will have to settle on Connected Baby (2015 film) (or whatever release year) if or when the newer project merits an article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for the apparent obvious mistake made listing this under AfD. I did so in good faith, after examining WP:DEL#REASON. I would still argue that this article has potential grounds for deletion under lack of notability, but it is clear that there is some doubt to that. As it stands, understanding that from the POV of more experienced users than I the article is not suitable for deletion, I shall endeavour to ensure that the article is more accurate and follows guidelines on promotional phrasing.
• additionally, we'd would like to make the following 3 observations, in the final stages of this discussion:
• 1. My employer did not create the original Wikipedia entry. She had resisted its creation at the time of its creation. (She has since tried to ensure at least the accuracy of the information contained in the article.)
• 2. She agrees with your analysis, that the film does not fit the criteria of 'notable'. This is one of the reasons she would like the entry removed. The film never premiered in any international film festivals, nor was it reviewed by any formal judging panel. Rather, it should be considered a 'resource' for those interested in infant psychology.
• 3. It is the case that the name of the film is closely related to a forthcoming new initiative, by the same name 'connected baby'. But we do not plan to seek an entry in Wikipedia on the project. So there is no conflict there.
• If the decision is made to retain the article, then we have a revised entry that we wish to post, which gives a more detailed account of the film's purpose and history.Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Joni.Bendall: In anything you suggest, please avoid WP:PROMOTION, but best if you pretty much stay away from editing the article yourself. That Yunshui created the article back in 2011, means that "someone-not-your-employer" thought the topic notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That your employer may not personally think it notable runs contrary to our notability criteria for films. That she may wish this one deleted because of her plans for a new and similarly named project seems a bit self-serving at this point it time. See WP:NAU. If she indeed has no plans to replace this article, then your original deletion argument above fails. A new article on the new film may well be created by someone else and would then be titled per WP:NCF. But most importantly, as WP:COI strongly discourages anyone with too-close a conection from editing topics with which they have vested interests. IF your employer would like to have the current article modified in some manner, you or she can offer suggestions on the article's talk page and provide the reliable sources, sources independent of the film or filmmaker, that support and confirm and such suggestions. Study WP:V, and WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mads Nielsen[edit]

Mads Nielsen (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT. I don't see him been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary reliable sources .Wikicology (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. As the player is on loan at a non-FPL team this season, WP:CRYSTAL would seem particularly relevant here. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fully pro means fully pro. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Indian Super League fixtures[edit]

2014 Indian Super League fixtures (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)

A separate page for league fixtures is first of all, never done, and second of all, does not provide anything encyclopedic. It is literally a list of fixtures and results. There is already a standard way to list fixtures and results as seen here. You can also list fixtures and results on the season pages for each team so this is not a needed page at all. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not required. GiantSnowman 15:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per arguments above, already dealt with in main season article. Fenix down (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nominator and comments above. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above. Kante4 (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike D'Amato (politician)[edit]

Mike D'Amato (politician) (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 WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Some local coverage, but not enough to meet GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. I won't cosider an assistant legislator notable enough to meet WP:POL. All I can see is a scanty reliable sources which does not satisfy the criteria.Wikicology (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I certainly consider Milwaukee to be a large enough city that its city councillors could be considered notable enough for Wikipedia articles if you could write a genuinely substantive article that was sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG — but it is not in the narrow range of cities for which city councillors get an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, and the sourcing here isn't even approaching the outer suburbs of the volume necessary to pass GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat. Nothing more to add. Bearian (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability for a politician as explained well by Bearcat above. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shadazzle[edit]

Shadazzle (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)

Almost a year has passed since the previous no-consensus AfD, but the article has not improved, so the previous rationale still holds: "Shadazzle is a webseries, an apparently nicely-produced amateur production. No indication that this has generated any coverage in reliable sources, however. The only two sources listed in the article (besides their own website) are from two very local publications of unclear status. A Google search mainly shows links related to a cleaning product of the same name. Fails WP:WEB, WP:FILM, and WP:GNG, hence: Delete." Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nice discussion in sources about this comedy. — Cirt (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Excluding reviews, I see four secondary sources here, one of which is from the world's largest broadcaster. I also think it's worth mentioning that, although some of the sources are local, they span several different localities. Definitely passes WP:GNG. — Fugabutacus 11:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The argument about "the world's largest broadcaster" was also brought forward at the previous AfD. I don't think that Radio Sheffield fits that description, it's just a small local part of the BBC. All coverage is minor and very local. To paraphrase: definitely misses GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suppose that's a fair point. However, I would stress that GNG makes absolutely no mention of locality. It is just a guideline, of course, and it's down to the community to decide, but if you go through each point of GNG one-by-one, this article checks them all off without a doubt. — Fugabutacus 13:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is visible, if we don't consider electronic media a reliable source, we have to delete hundreds of such articles.Justice007 (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please clarify what you mean with "electronic media" here? I don't know whether any hard figures are available about this, but my personal guess would be that at least 80% of all reliable sources used on WP are "electronic media"... The question here is not whether the sources are electronic or not, but whether they are of sufficient importance and depth to establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Randykitty, I meant here BBC. BBC Radio Sheffield, you said that is a local and on the same place you are accepting it is a part of the BBC, whether it is a part or a branch of "the world's largest broadcaster" is recognised as same body of an organisation. Other sources as Tubefilter and WebVee Guide both have an editorial staff. If you had the concerns about reliability of the sources, you should have asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before proposing for deletion second time. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that, I was confused because radio is not usually taken as an "electronic" source. The question here is whether the coverage is sufficient to establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources found online WP:RS. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you mind expanding on what online RS meet GNG? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article has undergone some major surgery, gaining and losing large chunks of data - in particular the episode guide and the information about the soundtrack. While that does not directly affect notability, it does seem that the article now contains less information than it once did. If the article is kept, shouldn't that information be added back in? Other series (TV mainly in the US) have lists of characters, lists of episodes, etc. LaMona (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All the articles on the Wikipedia all the time can be expanded and improved citing reliable sources, every passage of the article needs source, if not, can be challenged by any editor, it is more better content with source than unsourced. Justice007 (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Khanna[edit]

Rakesh Khanna (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)

Business person's resume. I'm not sure I see notability/requirement of why this person needs an encyclopedia article. I've not been active on Wikipedia for a while, though, so a bit rusty on notability criteria. —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • His biography in the section of the company he works for should be ample coverage. Outside of working for the company, not sure what is notabile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntel#Rakesh_Khanna —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The following was left opn my talk page. Posting here for clarity and benefit of the involved editor/creator —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Need help to clear flag on Rakesh Khanna

Dear Gaff,

I have made the required edits to Rakesh Khanna's page. I have also added few new sections and diluted the language a bit.

Can you please help me clear the "flag"/"notifications" for this page.

Regards, Vishal Yajnik 12:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalyajnik (talk • contribs) --—Gaff ^ταλκ 17:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Chief operating officer of a major company. I think he scrapes through. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G4 (no new non-primary sources), and SNOW deletion. Salting. Please request WP:DRV to seek recreation. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Jahns[edit]

Jeremy Jahns (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)

Biography that doesn't establish notability. Cites an affiliated source, a bunch of the subject's YouTube videos and a stats page.

A quick web search doesn't turn up anything more: just blogs, wikis, and more YouTube videos. Article was deleted before for pretty much the same reason. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:G4 and WP:A7. Since this self-promo article was recreated, I suggest salting to prevent recreation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - No evidence of notability, Citing YouTube isn't ideal neither. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all. There is no evidence of notability, almost all of the sources come from Jahns' personal YouTube channel. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. There just isn't anything out there to show that he's notable. I can see where he's popular on YouTube, but popularity does not mean that someone is notable. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) It may make it more likely that someone will gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. For example, Cryaotic (a LPer known for his association with PewDiePie) has over a million subscribers but hasn't really gained enough coverage to merit his own article. Heck, SkyDoesMinecraft has over 10 million followers and no Wikipedia article for the same reason and that's the 9th most popular channel on YouTube. This is actually a pretty common problem with YT personalities: you can be popular but still never actually gain any coverage about you. I can't really see where any of the concerns from the previous AfD have been met, so this could potentially be speedied. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:27, 22 September 2014 (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. but stubed for rewriting based on non-promotional tone and reliable sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hands On Science Outreach, Inc.[edit]

Hands On Science Outreach, Inc. (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)

Highly promotional article with notability issues unresolved for over six years. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:CORP. 'HOSO' fails to meet the depth of coverage/notability requirements. Also, the article is clearly written in a promotional tone, reads like an advertisement basically. The related article Project NEXUS should probably also go for the same reasons. Valiant Patriot (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or weakly consider keep&cleanup because there might be something in there of use to somebody researching how to develop informal/hands on science education. (I'm more forgiving to allow a quasi-notable educational non-profit slide on notability technicality, than say a self-promoting business tycoon). I don't entirely agree with the arguments above, that it should be deleted because it has a promotional tone. Tone of an article is better fixed through editing, than deletion. --—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. While I agree the article is in deplorable condition, and likely written by connected individuals, there are several excellent sources, among them this 1995 Baltimore Sun article and extensive coverage in several books: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Number 3 is actually written by the program creator, and #6 is a mere directory listing, but the others easily meet the standard for significant coverage in independent reliable sources (in many of these cases academic sources). BusterD (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a delete outcome is preferred by this process, I'd be happy to develop this page after userfication to my userspace. BusterD (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Relisting per new sources presented in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I would vote to delete the current article, but I think including BusterD's sources would be enough to save this article. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given BusterD's sources, but would BusterD be will to do a competent rewrite on the article? Should it be stubified for the time being? --Bejnar (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm on a work-related wikibreak right now, and won't be able to contribute meaningfully until just after October 10. However, I'd be happy if the result of a keep outcome here was to stubify the pagespace and allow someone (possibly myself) to rebuild it from scratch using reliable sources. I believe there's a bit of useful information in page history as well. I'm not a connected individual, but I have a fondness for and long familiarity with discovery science techniques and science-based museums. I should add that I'm in agreement with User:Valiant Patriot that Project NEXUS has a very similar COI problem. Rather than delete that page however, I urge editors to allow me to look over the extensive related sourcing attached to that bloated pagespace for possible page rescue. BusterD (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Lawton[edit]

Mac Lawton (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)

A non notable music director. Nothing wrong with be a indie one, but it seems this one is rather unotable. Wgolf (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notabiliy found. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above - no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABC of Emergency Radiology[edit]

ABC of Emergency Radiology (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)

Non-notable book, not discussed in reliable sources, not a bestseller, no book awards. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think you were missing a few things so I added them. Probably good this was relisted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep appears to be a formative text but needs work; I'm open to changing my opinion to Weak Delete BlueSalix (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added another source, a book review from the Critical Care Medicine journal. This along with the BMJ reliable source in the external links section, shows that the book has been discussed in multiple reliable sources, in enough depth that a reasonable short article can be written from the sources. The article is but a stub, but is well-formed and referenced. A notable topic and a well-formed article suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see nothing that makes this book notable. Two of the references are to sites that sell the book. The last reference is a book review, but that journal has a review section and reviews a couple of books per issue - this one is not unusual in any way that I can see. The second external reference is not about the book, at least not the part that I can read. It is about a trauma technique (named somewhat differently from the book), to whit: "The primary survey comprises a rapid evaluation of the patient, resuscitation, and institution of life preserving treatment. This process is called the ABCDE of trauma." LaMona (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Naumenko[edit]

Pavel Naumenko (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 WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Most sources given are passing mentions or do not mention him at all. The Banner talk 23:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) @ 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not think he is notable per WP:PROF, but he seems to be the general director of Kharkiv State Aircraft Manufacturing Company, see ru:Харьковский авиационный завод, the main subsidiary of Antonov and the biggest aircraft producer of Ukraine. Not sure whether this is sufficient for notability though.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His position would seem to make him pretty notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A-May Eain[edit]

A-May Eain (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)

Song that has been tagged for a few years-can't find any thing about it. Maybe should be a redirect to the singer? Wgolf (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per book sources added. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 20 September 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Clearing (EP)[edit]

The Clearing (EP) (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)

A EP with very little info that could probably be redirected to the band's page. Wgolf (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 16:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 20 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AudioSoft[edit]

AudioSoft (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 business doesn't seem to be Notable as AudioSoft, Ultra Electronics AudioSoft or Ultra Electronics Network Analytics. Stesmo (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 16:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article which was created and expanded by several WP:SPA accounts - describing what the firm did but not demonstrating notability. I can find very little coverage of it in its lifespan, other than reporting when it was taken over. It is now a business unit of Ultra Electronics so unlikely to gather more coverage under the former name. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubmood[edit]

Dubmood (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)

Promotional fluff piece. The sources listed provide trial mentions of the subject in passing, if at all. Silverfish8088 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 16:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources cited within the article are a combination of expired links, do not qualify as a reliable source, or do not make direct reference to the subject. I cannot locate non-trivial coverage of this subject in reliable third party sources. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 20 September 2014 (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. Michig (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solent Thrashers[edit]

Solent Thrashers (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'll firstly establish that the previous AfD nomination for this page included it as part of a bulk nomination, and the Keep decision was made solely because each page merited individual attention.

Having given this page individual attention, and quite aside from the extremely non-encyclopedic tone and content it consists of (almost none of which is referenced), various reasons for deletion occur to me:

• As detailed in the previous AfD nomination, it does not meet any specific notability guidelines for sports organisations laid out in WP:NSPORTS - it has had no nationally or internationally notable members/employees and has participated in no nationally or internationally notable events or activities.

• WP:AUD - according to Wikipedian standards "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" and at least one "national, or international source" is necessary - having searched google, google news, google scholar and google books I cannot find any national or international interest or sources, only local media and media of limited interest.

• WP:ORGDEPTH - even though there are these local news references and references on specialist, enthusiast websites, almost all of this coverage is Trivial according to Wikipedia's standards - specifically:
  • sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
  • inclusion in lists of similar organizations
  • the season schedule or final score from sporting events,
  • routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
  • brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
  • routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,
  • quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
  • passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization. WalkingOnTheB (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D

• Delete. The reasons given above are pretty iron-clad - I've done all the searching for media coverage I can and have had the same findings - local-press, trivial, non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFrontDeskMust (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. have googled: no national/interational notability, no non-trivial coverage. also (and incidentally) its written like a personal website and has had years to address issues. MarlovianPlough (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --- All points raised so far (which, as far as I can, I've corroborated) would individually be enough reason to delete, but taken as a group they're overwhelming. Personofi (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable amateur "American football" club team based in southern England. User:WalkingOnTheB nails this in his AfD nomination above, so there's no need for me to rehash the "delete" reasons in great detail, except to say that the subject fails to satisfy the specific notability guideline for teams and organizations per WP:ORG and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, both for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nomination has been withdrawn with no contrary !votes. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Ghost (film)[edit]

Holy Ghost (film) (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)

Deproded without explanation, non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep per meeting WP:NF (see addendum below). Article needs a lot of work, but that issue seems addressable and not one calling for deletion. Judson University speaks toward kickstarter campaign. Minor mention at Charisma News. Longer article in Revival Lifestyle. Brief writeup in Hallels. Longer article in Christian News Service. Much longer article in Charlotte Observer and a decent one at Christian Review. Podcast review at Christian Film Central. These found with a very quick look. This will never be Star Wars but not all films need to be. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum: Apparently this film's production and marketing is also spoken of in Variety, Washington Post, Gospel Herald, Breitbart, World Religion News, International Business Times, Christian Post and others. Nominator, how about a withdrawal? It can then be tagged for improvements. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sourcing found. The Variety piece is especially extensive. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Withdraw. BOVINEBOY2008 20:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

InformaCast[edit]

InformaCast (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)

No assertion of notability, and no references supporting such an assertion. ubiquity (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 16:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability established by [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Please research notability WP:BEFORE nominating. ~KvnG 23:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found by KvnG - Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Incubate  Topic satisfies WP:GNG and is "worthy of notice" (WP:N).  The article was created without WP:V sourcing.  The fact that the time of the deletion nomination is within 26 minutes of article creation, that the nomination mis-ascribes content problems to WP:N, and that the nomination does not show evidence of the steps to be taken WP:BEFORE nominating, doesn't change the fact that readers cannot verify the article content.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep, as an editor added references to the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 20 September 2014 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Grand countries[edit]

List of Miss Grand countries (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)

Looks like fancruft based on related sources. As the source given does not contain the info present here, also WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The Banner talk 11:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 16:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only stuff I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Part of the problem here is structural. The list is focused on geography when it should be focused on people - a beauty pageant is not really about what country the contestants come from. Which countries that have sent contestants to a beauty pageant is not a notable topic for a list. Beauty pageants are about the individual contestants, who happen to come from various countries. I would suggest the information presented in this list would be better presented in something like "List of winners of the Miss Grand contest". That would be a much more justifiable sub-article as far as notability goes. The countries could be included as a column of that list. Thus I think this list should be deleted, but a similar list - one with a different focus and structure created to replace it. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dana KCM[edit]

Dana KCM (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)

Google brought up social media and sites unrelated to subject. Google News had only 2 results, both having nothing to do with the subject. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 16:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 20 September 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East Side (Phoenix)[edit]

East Side (Phoenix) (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)

Purely original research.Google brings up real-estate websites triggered by the mention of a major city. What's more, notability is not inherited by being a part of a notable place. Unsourced since October 2006! Mr. Guye (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) @ 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 20 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE due to low participation in the discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dads and Daughters[edit]

Dads and Daughters (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)

While I found many sites talking about the stereotype mentioned in the article, I failed to find RS confirming the notability of the lobby group. The two given sources were reliable, but I don't think they alone are enough. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spout) @ 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This looks like a short-lived organization that accomplished one relatively small thing (getting an ad pulled). Then it died. LaMona (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Amateur Radio Society[edit]

Cyprus Amateur Radio Society (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 WP:NCORP. Google Search brings up their social media and aggregate websites that make passing mentions of the subject. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (say) @ 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 20 September 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page to Stage Festival[edit]

Page to Stage Festival (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 appear to meet WP:N. Local first time event, media coverage limited to local newspaper. Article creator has WP:COI as founder of event. (note: there is an unrelated event with this name run by Kennedy Center) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 16:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 20 September 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Vitoin[edit]

Tom Vitoin (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)

A fictional comic strip character with no links coming in or out and nothing of how he might be important. Wgolf (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (say) @ 16:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 20 September 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SoundsUP records[edit]

SoundsUP records (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 on an independent record label with no independent references. Signed some notable artists and thereby avoided an A7 speedy deletion, but there's no indication of notability otherwise. --Finngall ^talk 17:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know soundsUP is going to publish Poets of the fall on vinyl. Does it make sense to keep the small article in wiki? • vakhlov 13:17, 9 September 2014 (MSK)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 16:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Adair[edit]

Daniel Adair (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 gives the appearance that it was self-published for promotional purposes. furthermore The article is a biography of a living person, lacking sources congruent with appearing in encyclopedic text. Silverfish8088 (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 16:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article needs a rewrite, but apparently he's actually in Nickelback, and was in 3 Doors Down? As much as this all pains me, there are sources that merit consideration.[17][18] And he didn't end up with a slew of other language wikipedia articles out of nowhere.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Adair meets notability criteria #6, specifically he "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensemble". Regardless of anyone's opinion on their music, 3 Doors Down and Nickelback are definitely notable bands and Adair received independent coverage for his work in both of them. The article needs better sourcing, not deletion. A quick Google search demonstrates that there are plenty of reliable sources to be had with which to improve the article.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets wp:band. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Strauss (musician)[edit]

Robert Strauss (musician) (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)

Biography of a living person, lacking sources congruent with appearing in encyclopedic text. Silverfish8088 (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 16:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Its a resume more than a blp.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Insofar as I can tell most of this stuff is verifiable, and there clearly a public subject interest here, as article links musician to various other public figures.^{[1] [2][3][4]}--Funkypubs (talk) 2:58, 18 September 2014 (GMT)

• I would hope his personal website is interested in him! Any regular newspaper coverage, like a major or regional newspaper?--Milowent • ^{hasMilowent (talk 2:58, 20 September 2014 (GMT)]} 04:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• yes many articles all over the web, this is a well know music producer, and I'm a big fan - thus my efforts to make this information accessible new references added for consideration <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ektIFgBRxu0, www.ukvibe.org/interviews/robert-strauss-2014, http://endz2endz.com/tag/robert-strauss/, http://endz2endz.com/exclusive-interview-with-uk-soul-band-personal-life/, http://personallifetheband.com/post/61043248672/nice-feature-article-on-personal-life-in-august</ref>

Funkypubs • ^spoken 17:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete verification, but not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails MUSIC Just shows how far one can go on blogs, personal webpages and youtube citations. --Bejnar (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Institute for Talented Youth[edit]

Minnesota Institute for Talented Youth (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)

Notability. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 16:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. I would treat this as a secondary school and consider it automatically notable on that basis. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Eastmain: ... but it's not a secondary school. It's an enrichment program - just a private business. Except for the book you added, the sources are primary and appear to be advertizements. I can't actually see what's in the book but it looks like the subject was mentioned on only one page: [19]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Divine Worshipper[edit]

The Divine Worshipper (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)

Pulp fiction book that doesn't seem to meet notability requirements for books. I can't find any substantial coverage in reliable third-party publications, in particular. Author is prolific but doesn't appear to be notable, and the book isn't used for course ware. Mikeblas (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) @ 16:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 20 September 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya V Osipov[edit]

Ilya V Osipov (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)

Non-notable person. An entrepreneur who has had some success, but no significant coverage has arisen from it. Listed sources do not mention Osipov, but merely link to the companies or websites mentioned. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) @ 17:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Osipov made ​​the project absorbed by the Russian division of Hearst Corporation. Transaction entered into TOP10 mergers and acquisitions Internet projects in Russia 2012-2013. Links to Osipov as the founder of the projects is on the site of the project, unfortunately some of the links in Russian. So as there are articles in major publications such as The-Village Iexeru (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Parsonage[edit]

Steven Parsonage (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)

A junior rower, not competing successfully at senior level yet. Fram (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) @ 17:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Coverage is mainly reporting of results and junior accomplishments are not usually considered sufficient for notability. He may become a notable senior rower, but this article was created too early.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:28, 20 September 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xhevat Kelmendi[edit]

Xhevat Kelmendi (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)

One-sentence article based on unreliable sources. Λeternus ^(talk) 08:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please do not confuse with an actor of the same name. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]