The result was keep. Tone 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reason for this election to have its own article; the remaining 434 House races do not. This material could all easily go back where it belongs under the district and candidates' articles. This is recentism at its silliest (and US-centric thinking as well). Orange Mike | Talk 23:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I am not leaving a redirect because there are multiple options and maybe it is even better not to have a redirect after all. But this can be decided outside AfD. Tone 19:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-existent disease. Not recognized in any book of official diagnoses. Article recreated by same editors to circumvent delete/redirect decision of Harry Benjamin Syndrome. See previous delete/redirect consensus. This term is non-notable; the only reliable source that uses the term currently included at the article says "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is synonymous with transsexualism: “the transsexual disorder known as Harry Benjamin Syndrome.” Previously deleted article averaged 2 visits a day. This obscure term should be a redirect that reflects how Harry Benjamin Syndrome is handled. Jokestress (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator: Per CheckUser evidence, here and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlotteGoiar, I've removed some of the repetitive SPA notices and redacted some of the off-topic sockpuppetry discussions that were present in this revision of the discussion, leaving the discussions that focus upon the article at hand. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Next, about your repeated comments that this is a precise medical diagnostic...do you have any medical sources confirming this? (a diagnostic manual or some such.)
Finally, I am not TG, nor are several of the other people who have commented here. You're doing yourself no good by making assumptions about people and trying to discredit them without any actual evidence. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion of sock-puppetry removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough! I find shameful and disgusting the full "investigation" made up by users Brossow and Rjanag about the possible IPs used by user Charlotte Goiar and about her very person and her work User Brossow talk page (vid. comments above), trying to discredit her and her opinions about this matter. I created this article for the sole purpose of spreading knowledge on Harry Benjamin's Syndrome to all those people interested in it, not to query the spotless work of a person (Charlotte Goiar) whom I don't have the chance to know, but whose work helping people suffering from this Syndrome is simply praiseworthy, as can clearly be inferred from the work displayed on her website [11]. I think it is ridiculous the discuss over the "notability" and the "reliability" of the term "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" and the suitability of an article on such Syndrome, after having seen that terms at least as "notable" and "reliable" as the one discussed, like Third genderThird sex, genderqueer or queer heterosexual, have their own safe place on Wikipedia with extensive articles entitled with them, and no one thinks about their deletion. Is it necessary to remind user Jokestress, who nominated this article for deletion, that not a single biologist or scientist would EVER state that there is a third sex in humans or a third gender? Do we have to remind the other users who objected to this article that a word so used in this discussion such as "transgender", in opposition to "transsexual", was almost unthinkable only ten years ago? What is a queer heterosexual? What right does theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick hold in order to create a "queer theory" and why doesn't the one who created the Harry Benjamin's Syndrome term have it as well, especially when it's being a syndrome treated by doctors all over the world for more than 40 years? I strongly believe that Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, can no longer remain indifferent to those terms such as "Third sex", "genderqueer" or "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" that may not be officially recognized but which are a part of society, and have a reflection in newspapers, the Internet or mass media. This has been proved above with the external links of newspapers that mentioned the term which is being discussed. Nevertheless, since I see here that my article has made such bad reactions arise, with personal attacks being involved, I ask for the deletion of this article if it is considered to be of help in order to stop it. Thank you. Marta314 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You suggest once again redirect to "Transsexualism"; may I ask you then why is not genderqueer redirected to transgender according to your reasoning? Thanks Marta314 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Thatcher, to say that "HBS is a subset of TGism" is the typical argument used by many TG people without any conceptual basis that supports it. If you want to be taken seriously then you should retract from expressing these false assumptions. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs)
Where are the reliable independent sources for to back up Wikipedia existing articles such as Third Sex or Queer Heterosexual? By the way the theory that gender identity is socially constructed is finally shattered and by contrast the theory that prenatally established brain and CNS structures determine innate gender feelings and gender identity is finally established quoting Lynn Conway: "These are dramatic, unprecedented, undeniable observations that shift the previous paradigm of thought, and do so in an area of science that had been subject to much misinformation and taboo. In Galileo's case, the shift was from an 'earth-centered universe' to a 'sun-centered universe'. In the cases here, the shift is away from a 'genitals + upbringing' theory of gender identity to a 'CNS neurobiological developmental' theory of gender identity. The implications of this paradigm shift are far reaching, especially for those who suffer from cross-gender identities. Instead of those gender feelings being considered to be "psychological", they can now be understood as being "neurological" in nature." further supporting the sourcing of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs)
Well, they criticized Galileo too, though hundreds of years later his ideas were common sense... As Galileo before being burnt, I rectify: I ask for the article's deletion (not a redirect, of course). Marta314 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I am pointing Conway's self-published website. Although there are other self-published websites as well as this one. 213.60.150.80 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen from the Google searches, this thing has only 35 Google hits, and its 3 Google Scholar hits are in-house. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable series by notable SF writer; no substantial sources, no assertion of notability. This one is basically a plot outline of a series that stalled after three non-notable books that went almost nowhere. Anything of value here, after being trimmed by 96-98%, could go in the article on Stasheff. Orange Mike | Talk 23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not pass GNG due to the fact that there is only a single reliable source listed. Further, I'm not sure what the policy for Apple applications is, but if every one had an article there would be over 10,000 new articles. XenocideTalk|Contributions 23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per author's request at the article page, and talk page. JamieS93 23:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Company with no indication of notability WP:CORP from reliable sources outside of a local scope. Contested PROD. Trying to assume good faith, but this is possibly spam (due to the user name of the primary editor) and there is no evidence that the "notable employees" section is anything more than WP:COI. --Kinu t/c 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to BITS-Pilani,_Goa_Campus. Black Kite 23:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
eNVy™ 01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. Needs expansion and better sources. Tone 22:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT . 1 mention in gnews [16]. created by an editor who was only on WP for 1 day. Unless someone can find something in Urdu... LibStar (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established for internet magazine. Sources given are primary sources or from sources that are not reliable, such as a blog. Google search does not help. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MuZemike 23:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced, citations to an editorial that mentions the chant in passing, a youtube video and other poor sources. The article does nothing to establish the importance of this cheer or document it in any encyclopedic way. More a random collection of references to this cheer than a real article. Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MuZemike 23:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am a new editor, but article does not seem to be sourced well. My search did not produce much result.Editor for hire (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC) — Editor for hire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should have been speedied as it was created by a single purpose account as a promotional advert. The notable individuals mentioned have articles. Existing article has no actual content except a list of accomplishmenst of the different individuals. Online mentions are press releases. 2005 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete A pity because he's well deserving of more notability, but I cannot disagree with the arguments below. Kevin (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what the biography states, there's nothing I can find that proves Church is notable. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Band appears to be non-notable, and it seems unlikely that any band won an Emmy. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Massive self-promotion; note how it says more about the cast and crew than about the film. An earlier version of the article actually contained exernal links to each person's individual website!
No non-superficial Ghits; most are self-published, with a couple of basic directory listings. Author's claim that the film will become notable once it's been screened at festivals contravenes Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. The JPStalk to me 21:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this album Joe Chill (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Some of the arguments presented during this AfD are confusing to say the least, but regardless, it appears that there is no consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per article talk page, there seems to be a lack of notability to support this article. The references given after the last AfD are pretty lacking, they simply describe the game as having been played in a university and by two people in particular. I checked (as per the article talk page) on Google, Googlebooks and Googlenews and could find nothing else other than personal websites on the game. Perhaps my Google-fu is weak, but I would like it noted that I had searched and am not using this Afd for general article cleanup. Alastairward (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Hiberniantears. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable group, in my opinion fails WP:BAND. Prod template was removed with following edit summary: "why would the article be deleted? this is a rising rap group, just because you have not heard of it does not mean it is "not a notable music group". please do not delete article thanks". I still think it doesn't meet our criteria. Google Search for "Illuminati X" hip hop is not helpful. Vejvančický (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Multiple editors have posted to the talk page, both noting the article's spam/advertising/vanity appearance, and its use of primary sources to websites that refer back to each other. I would tend to agree. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://dl1.tatu.ru/trailers/WasteManagement%20en.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.163.93 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article claims to have confirmed songs for this album, I searched Google and couldn't even find a release date, much less confirmed songs. This article thus fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL for now. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also The american metrosexual please check tatu's english forum at www.tatu.ru/en/, click forum and then all about tatu. then click on Confirmed infomation un-confirmed infomation and Waste management speculation, You can see it all there, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.158.107 (talk)
The result was Delete per "Snowball" is a good name for a cute fluffy white kitten, as well as for the outcome of this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is at least the second recreation of substantially the same article. Taking it to AfD so it can be speedied if created again, or merged appropriately (there is no content though).
Wikipedia is not a howto guide. Shadowjams (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has no sources. 74.249.145.231 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by TimVickers. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy/contested PROD. A non notable term. Only source is a forum post, not a reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I put the first AfD (with a very similar rationale) on it but something went wrong and it didn't appear on the article and then this AfD got started shortly afterwards. I propose we use this one and ignore my one as it hasn't had any votes. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong; I love this series and read it maniacally every single time there's a new chapter out. But frankly, this page has been given enough chances to survive. A Google search of this in English leads to those oh-so-legendary illegal scanlation sites that should never be linked to. A search in Japanese on Google leads to a reference-less JA wiki page, the official publisher's official page, an apparent blogger review, and tons of retail sites. Neither WP:N nor WP:NB are met. The page itself has no lead and is made up of just a list of characters and their descriptions. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball springs to mind here - this only consists of two artists who may return then (without sources), and three who may release albums then: one I don't think mentions 2011 and the other group's news page definitely doesn't mention 2011 either. In any case, isn't September 2009 a little early to start talking about 2011's music? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DeleteThe arguments regarding the trivial nature of the published coverage are compelling. Kevin (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP with no third party sources. Probable autobiography. Prod was removed with significant cleanup, but no suitable sources added. I can find passing mentions of him in Google, such as in [46], but no substantial biographies or reviews of his work gadfium 19:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Article Speedy Deleted R3. NON-ADMIN CLOSURE Frmatt (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
R3 Typo created in error (Catagory instead of Category). Sorry about that. SimonTrew (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (and rename per discussion) Black Kite 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability. Part of a brand that's only mentioned in the Gamble-Skogmo article. I see no point in merging one individual store, even if it is one of the only remaining ones of that sort. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as "Red Owl stores". The chain is better known than this individual store. --Soc8675309 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Though only a couple stores now remain, the chain has a notable past. "Mason's Red Owl" is a plausable search term, since for some time it was the only one. Jonathunder (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book about notable game I've played for almost four decades. The main sources are publications dedicated to the game, which don't constitute the requisite substantial coverage. Fails WP:BOOK. Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The 2 main sources noted here as proof of notability seem to confer notability on Rosas Farms rather than Al Rosas specifically, as he is not the main subject of either article.. The controversy, as poorly sourced as it is, offers no indication of notability either. Kevin (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been a source of controversy, having been extensively edited by the subject or someone closely related as Tsunami812 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). It contained a significant amount of unsubstantiated fluff and claims without third party sources. At some point other editors added material about a controversy that the subject was involved in, at this point the COI editor and multiple IPs attempted to remove the controversy section multiple times. It has been protected for periods due to sourced content removal. None of the other claims have had sources added. Having removed the unsubstantiated claims, what is left is borderline for establishing notability i think. I highly doubt the article would exist were it not for the subject being self promotional or other parties attempting to discredit the subject. Today someone one again attempted to remove it all and place a threat for which they have been indefinitely blocked, but I think the community should weigh in on the state of this article which has never really contained a version that satisfies both notability and BLP concerns. A problem is that the controversies surrounding this subject are mostly based in the blogosphere and have not received significant mainstream coverage, nor has any lawsuit been actually been filed, leaving the claims as online allegations. WP:ONEVENT is also of relevance i think. Mfield (Oi!) 17:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided by Whpq are both passing mentions that do not establish notability. The other sources in the article are either passing mentions or press releases. This marginally notable individual fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. The consensus below is that there are sufficient sources to establish notability and that other outstanding issues can be dealt with via the ordinary editorial process. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to COI and Notability issues. As it states in the COI guidelines, "do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." As one editor has noted in the talk page, "27 edits were made anonymously by someone from the JTA's IP address while the subject was employed there." There is also an issue of Notability. With regard to the notability guidelines, the article seems to be full of original research. Also some sources (eg. "Jewish Socialist") may not be considered reliable. Each singular event presented in the article is generally from one source of information, each with very few (if any) secondary sources. Many of the links and sources are clearly not independent of the subject at hand (eg. created for purposes self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, etc.) **My apologies if I might have done this wrong. This is the first time for me to try nominating an article for deletion. Anything anyone can do to help me clean this up, would be appreciated. Getitrightfolks (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Tyrenius. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely hoax, or at the very most some kind of non-notable pseudo-secret gang. No references. Speedy delete tag removed multiple times by anon IPs. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per author request (see below) by User:Orangemike. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New product; a google search and google news search aren't turning up notability. Was deleted via prod, but article creator asked for the article to be restored and has not addressed the prod issues. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Contact Air. — Jake Wartenberg 17:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This could be merged into Contact Air (which was done already, actually). This aviation accident did not result in any injuries, maybe not even the plane is beyond repair. I don't think this is worth having an entry of its own, it's just not important enough. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE The very significantly revised WP:AIRCRASH guidelines are now live per consensus on the talk page. References to the guidelines prior to 11:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC) likely refer to the previous version. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced/original research; title is a non-notable neologism, probably made up by the creator of the article. snigbrook (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like most other articles created by now-banned User:CltFn, this one is a puff piece that lacks reliable, third-party sources. The real purpose of this article is to inflate the credentials of Bat Ye'or, who is rather tendentiously described as a "historian and expert on Islamic culture" despite her lack of any academic standing. This book has never received any notice or discussion outside the walled garden of anti-Islam agitprop. No reviews by neutral sources like major newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals, etc. Fails WP:V, WP:NPOV, and the notability guidelines in WP:BK. *** Crotalus *** 16:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep a simple search shows plenty of sources. AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that this book ever received any mainstream attention. The article cites no reliable, third-party sources — just a single radio interview with the author, which lacks independence and hardly establishes any level of notability. It was created in June 2005 by a a now-banned user who repeatedly engaged in anti-Muslim POV pushing. The lack of mainstream attention means that it is not only impossible to meet verifiability, but also impossible to write a neutral article as our policies require. Any article would invariably give undue weight to fringe anti-Islam sources. An examination of the requirements of WP:BK also shows that this article falls short. *** Crotalus *** 15:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 17:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hasn't even been released, so fails WP:NSONGS. Prefer to redirect but two attempts have been reverted. Delete for now, with no prejudice against recreation upon achieving notability requirements for songs. Wolfer68 (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 17:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. Cannot find independent coverage. Haakon (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 17:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:HAMMER. Unsourced. Untitled. Unconfirmed track list (despite what the article says). Wolfer68 (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact#Mediterranean Antiquity. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable potential OoPA, may be a wp:hoax regardless only reliable source is a stub, not sufficient to confirm WP:N Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Concurs Ok, you all convinced me, merge is fine. Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Provisional_IRA_East_Tyrone_Brigade. (except Patrick Kelly, per ONIH - this one to be left open for a short while to see if it can be improved) Black Kite 22:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As part of this AFD I'm also nominating Seamus Donnelly (Irish republican), Eugene Kelly (Irish republican), Gerry O'Callaghan, Tony Gormley and Patrick Joseph Kelly as their articles are all based on the same single event.
These articles were previously nominated for deletion. The result of that discussion was to merge them to Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade.
The original concerns still seem valid based on WP:N, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and particularly, WP:ONEEVENT. The subjects don’t seem to have done anything notable besides being killed in the Loughgall ambush and what notable content on them there is should be added there since there appears to be very little on their lives to create anything more than a perma-stub. The Declan Arthurs article highlights this. There are seven refs, which looks promising, but the 1st, 5th, 6th and 7th deal with the Loughall incident. The 2nd appears to be from an Irish Republican commemorative website and fails WP:RS. The 3rd and 4th aren’t even about him, they’re about his brother. There was previously an eighth ref there which I removed as no part of it supported the claim that “in January 1987, Arthurs spent all but seven days in Gough Barracks with no charges being brought” and it deals with the Loughall ambush and not Arthurs’ life. Others have even more problems, the Seamus Donnelly article has nothing other than a brief line or two and two refs, one not a reliable source and the other about Loughgall. During the previous afd on Tony Gormley it was claimed that Gormley was notable for other attacks. However nearly 3 years have passed since then and there is still no hint that the article can be improved to standalone status. As 22 years have passed since the deaths of all involved it’s unlikely that any new information will come to light on their activities. Valenciano (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Obviously promotional, seems to be agreement of that in the discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability, in the article or elsewhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 17:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't seem to meet the general notability guideline because there are not sufficient reliable, third-party sources that focus specifically on the subject. Some of the references are either from the subject himself, or from unreliable sources like Lyndon LaRouche's PAC. There are only 3 sources that could reasonably be considered reliable. One of them, an article in The Nation, mentions Dennis King only a single time. Another is a book review in The New York Times of one of King's works. Still, the subject here is the book, not King himself, and there is very little biographical information to be had here. There is also an interview with King conducted by the Chicago Sun-Times, but this interview focuses mostly on LaRouche and tells us little to nothing about King himself. The bottom line is that we can't write a biography of Dennis King because we don't have the appropriate sources to allow us to do that. *** Crotalus *** 15:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps the article should be re-named to be about his book, which seems to be his sole claim to fame. I suggest this because there are hundreds of source citations to his book at the various LaRouche articles, and the Wikipedia reader ought to have some background information on King available, so as to be able to evaluate the use of his book as a source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition. Article was prodded for that reason shortly after its creation in March 2009; prod was removed by article's creator with a defense that rather misses the point ("This definition isn't currently explained elsewhere on Wikipedia or Wiktionary, so we must create a new article for it"). The point being, of course, that there's no reason for an article that does nothing, or can do nothing, besides define a word or phrase. (And this definition is now included in Wiktionary, whether or not it was there in March 2009.)
I would request that anyone who votes to keep this article offer up a suggestion for a new title, as the current one obviously does nothing to disambiguate the topic, but the topic is so vague I can't think what else would be appropriate. Propaniac (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As creator of that article, I appreciate it is WP:DICDEF and I *thought* I had marked it for transclusion into Wiktionary (perhaps such a marking got removed when it was.) No need for it here now. I would not be too didactic about dicdefs that are not in Wiktionary though; we have to get them in there somehow, and personally I am busy enough on Wikipedia without learning another Wiki. Being a WP:PNT regular (apparently) I am well aware of the occasional annoyance when it seems another editor has not really made an effort when creating the article, but I don't in this case that's really justified (I forget what article it was used on, but it definitely needed to be linked from it – or perhaps better, reworded on that article, which for some reason I was reluctant to do.) SimonTrew (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Rocco Siffredi. — Jake Wartenberg 17:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO. Only other claim to notability is the supposed Miss Hungary title, but that claim is contradicted by the available, reliably sourced listings of pageant winners, which don't show any of the names, referenced or unreferenced, the article subject has reportedly used. While there are many online references to the title, they all apparently are based on non-independent, unreliable promotional material promoting the films the article subject appears in. Article repeatedly deleted in past by PROD and speedy processes, but it keeps coming back, so AFD needed for more binding resolution. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice stop-go animated short but, regrettably, YouTube content that does not establish notability fails inclusion criteria. I42 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rock band whose record of gigs is maybe enough to save them from speedy deletion by WP:CSD#A7, but who have released only two self-published EPs and do not meet the notability criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Lectonar. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claims notability but no ghits to back up claims i could find. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about sextuplets which does not thoroughly state notability. Simply being born and surviving should is not encyclopedic. TM 14:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
spammy article about unremarkable software which lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Creator contested prod and repeatedly removes reference maintenance tags on this and similar articles about software from that same website. RadioFan (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason above, additionally the only references on any of these articles are either blogs are listings on shareware list sites which do little to demonstrate notability.:
The result was Move to Article Incubator. Clearly a notable topic, but as mentioned before, this is merely a collection of OR and SYNTH that does little to enlighten the reader as to that topic. Black Kite 22:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page appears to be OR with SYNTH. The sourcing is a couple of newspaper articles and a non RS website (the link currently goes to a page saying "ass"). Although the term is in common usage, it is not defined clearly enough in lots of RS for this article to be able to get anywhere without SYNTH. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 02:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ENT, simply having an ongoing role does not equate to notability. most coverage is passing mentions not in depth coverage [65]. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per G12 by Killiondude. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
StewartNetAddict (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nominated for speedy deletion, fails NN.. creator meant to close and nominate for speedy. tedder (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NN mitchsurp (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of red links, not to mention exactly 0 references. mitchsurp (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very self-serving, even listing the coaches phone number if you're interesting in training. Article was speedy deleted when it was called Tipton Ladies Football Club. mitchsurp (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, non-notable radio program lacking GHits and GNEWS. Fails WP:NOTE ttonyb (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet the criteria for books, specifically significant coverage in multiple third-party sources. The only independant reference is a passing mention and a quote by the author in a story about Twitter. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:BAND. Note that a previous version of the article contained quotes from a newsletter, a website and a blog. Evil saltine (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Cincinnati Reds minor league players. Tone 20:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor league baseball player. Since he exists and is a minor league baseball player, he's got a smattering of Ghits, but none are significant mention in reliable sources. Fails WP:ATHLETE by definition. Wikipedia is not a baseball scouting website. If he makes the Major Leagues, great, but chances are he won't and even if he does, it'll be several years from now (WP:CRYSTAL) and we wouldn't need an article like this about him (I don't think anyone really believes that high school baseball is notable enough for this much information about it). PROD continues to show its uselessness, as it was removed by the author. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added additional stats and references which is all that was said was required to take down the deletion notice. It's a notable article because "Bowe became the first athlete from Ellendale to be drafted by a professional sports team, the first athlete to ever be drafted straight out of high school from Milford High". The page is not only about his high school play as you claim and there are additional references available if you look up Theo Bowe as well as Theodis as you referenced. Superman7515 (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There ya go, he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Superman7515 (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. simply making 2 appearances or having an IMDB listing does not cut it. nothing in gnews [66], and google reveals mainly directory listings. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. The nominator has withdrawn and there are no outright delete !votes. However, 2 of the 3 !votes are for something other then keeping and WP:SK is unclear on this issue. Since both merging and redirecting are editorial decisions and can be done without AFD, I'm going to close this discussion as "nomination withdrawn" (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. A single chapter of a worldwide union. Blargh29 (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn - non-admin closure --Cyclopia (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that this meets WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Atari 7800. If more sources appear or the article can be expanded, the article can be split off again, but as of now, the consensus is to merge. NW (Talk) 01:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This program doesn't assert notability. The one reference is from a how-to guide based upon emulation. This simply shows that it is just a mention of the program and its purpose, which does not indicate notability. TTN (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. mitchsurp (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC) mitchsurp (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. This is already the 5th AfD closed as keep... anyway, a possible mergre or other editorial issues can be discussed outside AfD. Tone 20:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL. Nothing against the people who loved her, but almost everything here is already covered in her own part of Mourning Sickness --mitchsurp (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until yesterday, I was not aware this topic existed, and I still do not know it exists - my attempts to find any reliable confirmation failed so far. The article makes an impression of being referenced, but all the links are either on "open source" or on "optics", not on "open source optics". I myself can not imagine application of open source to optical design. Materialscientist (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided are not from reliable sources and the article itself does not truly state notability. The sources provided are from highly partisan organizations and newspapers (extreme pro-Israel publications) and YouTube, which I am to remove. The article is highly inflammatory and should not be kept unless a few reliable sources can be provided. TM 03:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this film. The creator also has a conflict of interest. Joe Chill (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not notable. Artists ALWAYS go on promo "tours", and promo "tours" are never notable because all the are are short performances and short interviews. They aren't even tours. Other artists don't have promo tour pages ---Shadow (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to establish notability. A citation confirming its use as a standardized test in China would fix this. NeonMerlin[85] 01:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT, nothing in gnews [86] . LibStar (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet played for first team, fails WP:ATHLETE, had added a PROD but immediately removed by author. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable piece of software. Has one reference to a blog. Miami33139 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
falls foul of WP:BLP1E, while the coverage fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Sad, horrible and all, but not encyclopaedia-worthy. The use of life tariffs does bring this a bit more importance than other murderers, but 1) it's not enough to justify keeping it and 2) it doesn't override BLP1E, the main problem here. Ironholds (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Text messaging. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous holder of the fastest texter, now not notable as surpassed by Text messaging#Records Bladeofgrass (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Center_for_American_Progress#Criticism_of_.22The_Structural_Imbalance_of_Political_Talk_Radio.22. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable report. WP:COATRACK article for Mark Lloyd. Brandon (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 01:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. ospalh (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SUPERAntiSpyware has nearly 20 million worldwide users, is recommended by Dell tech support (among others), is used as a tool on forums such as Majorgeeks and TechSupport Forum, and is available through major software retailers such as CompuCom, Software House International, Computer Troubleshooters, and Tiger Direct. It has as much merit as any other commercially available software mentioned in any other wikipedia entry.
Delete. Not notable, refs give only one mainstream indep. source, and that's only a review. Primarily a promotional article. Ohiostandard (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another advertisement for someone's pet software project. Fuzbaby (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NN album, no hits online, no sources. →ROUX ₪ 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-wiki spam, dubious notability, previously removed from french wiki (in french: fr:Discussion:Klemen_Pisk/Suppression).
The result was keep. The issue of renaming can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page title is a neologism that occurs only in the linked AP story and is not an industry or scientific term. The "technology" is a purely uncommercialized preliminary/original research from a single study. So-called "porcine petroleum" (a misnomer for specifically pig manure-derived synthetic petroleum, part of a more general process), has not been produced in commercial or economically significant quantities. Any references to this research belongs in another article. NTK (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N, at least as far as a cursory Gnews search was able to determine. I'm treating this as a contested prod, since I prodded this article a few months back, and it was deleted, but the article creator re-created it. RayTalk 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party contested speedy. Long, unreferenced article about a Pokemon tournament contestant. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]