Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 18

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< January 17 January 19 >

Purge server cache

January 18

edit
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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bucharest snobbery

edit

POV title, nonsensical and not referenced content, I can't see how it would develop into an encyclopedic article. bogdan 17:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the type of article you speedily delete. The fact is, the snobbery of many Bucharestians is a well-known thing. It is an inter-cultural phenomenon to be documented, but presented in NPOV with sources. Alexander 007 17:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the idiocy of George W. Bush is a "well-known thing". I don't think an article named George W. Bush idiocy would last long, even though it may be "well documented, presented in NPOV and with sources". bogdan 17:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bogdan, I didn't think the article would bother you that much. I mean, you're not a snob! ;))))))))) ;)))))) --Candide, or Optimism 23:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title can be changed: "Perceived Bucharest snobbery". Think of something, Candide. The George W. Bush analogy is imprecise, as that involves an individual. Straw-man. Alexander 007 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Perceived US Presidential idiocy" is better? It does not involved one individual, but all the US presidents. :-) bogdan 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the analogy is improper, because we know who each individual U.S. president was; but here, it is a faceless, nameless mass---aside from some specific examples which may be brought forward. Alexander 007 18:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, this should be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, once the sources are brought forward, if not in this specific article. Maybe in Culture of Romania or something. Alexander 007 18:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a title like Bad Wallachians who want Moldavians to suffer would be more accurate for the current content of the article Anonimu 18:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, screw this article. I think what remains can be discussed in Culture of Romania. The common perception of Bucharestian snobbery is an actual thing, and I don't like snobs from Bucharest, baby. Alexander 007 18:42, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was Delete--a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogivism

edit

3 google hits, all from inside wikipedia. nn neologism, or at least that's what someone hopes it is. extreme quick delete. Timecop 00:01, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was Non-notable JoJan 10:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sukato

edit

non notable, few googles with Wikipedia near top, low Alexa Dakota ~ ε 00:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator few googles, non notable vanity No Alexa hits [1]WP:MUSIC

.--Dakota ~ ε 00:26, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologia Educational Ministries

edit

Doesn't assert the significance of this business. Delete. Catamorphism 00:23, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points of distributed sound

edit

Zero relevant google hits (all mirrors of this wikipedia article, and from the article itself, this seems to be a neologism for "genre", except 100x gayer. Timecop 00:30, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete all. howcheng {chat} 17:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Championship Wrestling, FCW Heavyweight Championship, FCW Tag Team Championship

edit

Absolutely no evidence of notability. Very likely a candidate for A7 (club) Speedy Delete. Deiz 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I bundled the AFDs for FCW Heavyweight Championship, FCW Tag Team Championship —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-18 09:23Z

Below was for FCW Heavyweight Championship and FCW Tag Team Championship (same content) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-18 09:23Z

Begin bundled AFD —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-18 09:23Z

This and other real minor and badly written pro wrestling promotions can be sorted this way... maybe that is something that can be looked into doin at some point --- Paulley 15:31, 22 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_Ring_3

edit

Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. Mike (T C)   00:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is info that the movie will be made. However I know nothing more. -- Psi edit 00:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is ther a policy outlining this, or is this your opinion? Mike (T C)   04:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit curious about that myself. When you say "all upcoming movies", does that include movies for which there is no available information about cast, director, writers, plot, or anything else that an encyclopedia entry about a movie would normally include? I ask because that's what your vote appears to say. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:37, 21 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cast of RENT (film)

edit

Everything in this article is already in Rent (film); not worth creating a redirect since it's not a logical search string. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 00:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reason to keep duplicate articles, cast list belongs in main article, not on its own. Mike (T C)   00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, but they did chart under the name. If you want to delete it I have no problem, unless we can add the film to the list of "Dance Top 40 acts in United States" as a category, since "Seaons of Love" is currently charting on the Hot Dance Airplay chart.

Robert Moore (talk • contribs)17:38(PST) 18 January 2006 (PS: Apologize for not signing my name. BTW the post below wasn't mine.

  • Keep I see no problem with this article.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.93.31.96 (talk • contribs) .
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 of the debate was sent to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Punkmorten 16:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vár

edit

huh, I did not think I have to make a vfd for a simple redirect, sometimes WP is way too bureaucratic :-) anyway, the reasons I wanted this to be deleted are these: 1) the name vár simply means castle in Hungarian; the current redirect (leading to only 1 castle) is inaccurate, there should be at least a disamb page or a "List of castles in Hungary" page, but there are hundreds of castles and castle ruins in Hungary, and right now I don't see any chance that the majority of them will have articles soon (there are articles about 3, I think); 2) it's not likely anyone will search for a Hungarian term in an English wikipedia; as far as I know English names are preferred.

sorry if this is the wrong page to vfd it, or if I messed something up, I'm still a beginner at this :) Alensha 00:42, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gothcore bands

edit

The article on Gothcore was deleted; this is now an orphaned list. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 00:47, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 18:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wubbles

edit

Nonsense and non-notable with only 2 members. Though this is cute. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:51, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct Games

edit
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 of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 18:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desirable Danny D

edit
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 of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 18:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Happies

edit

Article about an indie rock band full of vanity and dangerous redlinks and no assertion of importance. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-18 01:22Z

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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mildiez

edit

a blog ran by 4 non-notable students. 190 unique google hits, mostly from blog indexes and other useless crap. Non-notable, fails WP:WEB. 600k alexa. Timecop 01:29, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delicetese

edit

Hoax, as far as I can tell; Deliceto is a real place, but Delicetese gets less than 10 Google hits, and some of the definitions seem absurd. Delete. Catamorphism 01:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I tried a number of different ways to find out anything about it through Google, with no luck. Only Google hits are references to this article, word-for-word, and one use on a foreign language page which I'm pretty sure is a misspelling of "delicatese". As a former Toronto resident it isn't familiar at all. - Dharmabum420 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Darn, I just edited this one today. No reason to keep it though. — Moe ε 03:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My guess it that it's not a hoax. The official page of Deliceto [2] mentions a kind of pasta called pzzedd while Delicetese has "pzed - homemade pasta". --Cam 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence that they talk this way there: this page says that standard Italian domani "tomorrow" is cra in the variety of the Pugliese dialect spoken in the province of Foggia, where Deliceto is. Dopo domani " the day after tomorrow" is pscra. Compare the Delicetese's crεy and pskrεy (disclaimer: my knowledge of Italian is too low to put it-1 on my user page, but I know a few words and my Spanish helps). --Cam 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fixed typo in my last comment. --Cam 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty good hoax. Extends to the official site for Deliceto.--Cam 15:11, 20 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Bioethics Treaty Organisation

edit

devoid of content, nn (no non-wikipedia google hits), ad-like Hirudo 01:34, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was article was speedy deleted as nn-band; closing the debate. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 12:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Exit

edit

Delete as NN band. Article written by a band member. Not listed on the recording studio website mentioned in the article. The band's website is a dead link. BillC 01:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC). Add: the band's logo should be considered for deletion also. BillC 02:34, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haverford Blog

edit

non-notable personal/regional blog. claims 300,000 visitors during 23 month period. no alexa data. 80 unique googles. Wikipedia is not a web directory of crap. Timecop 01:42, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Wile

edit

Speedy delete. This article is centered around a non-notable person. Also delete Apologia Educational Ministries. SycthosTalk 01:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly notable, but verifiable through reliable sources? Lotusduck 02:11, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scout Uninstall Guideline

edit

The concept this page talks about sounds sane to me, but there's no references and no hits whatsoever on google. Hirudo 01:54, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Society of the Eternal Rulers

edit

Delete. Sounds like irrelevant cruft. Karmafist 01:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. How'd you get 13 Google hits? I didn't even get any. -Will
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 of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 17:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Catholic

edit

Pointless article as it is perfectly clear what the two words indicate Delete. Arniep 02:09, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as a copyvio. JIP | Talk 18:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web container implements web components

edit

glossary def, nn concept, also possibly copyvio from the indicated source. Hirudo 02:09, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Span_Outsourcing

edit

Delete. Pure advertising. King of Men 02:20, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was article has been speedy deleted outside this process, closing the debate. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 12:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Metal Coders

edit

nn demo group Hirudo 02:23, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was honestly, WTF? Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copernicus' nationality

edit

POV ping pong, unsourced, probably partly original research. I'm sure there are many debates as to which modern country various historical figures "belong", but it is not a subject worthy of a separate article for each person. Delete or Merge with Nicolaus Copernicus removing a lot of the guff. Arniep 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What looks like a "copyvio"? Some part or the whole article? --Matthead 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those who call for a Merge apparently expected others to do the work ... --Matthead 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Again, remeber what it was here in first palce. The Nicolaus Copernicus article was frequently subject of constant revert wars. Moving the whole nationality issue into subarticle was thought as a way to save the Nicolaus Copernicus article from revert wars, summarise the arguments for and against "Polish" or "german" instead of cluttering the page.
Comment This article is basically a nationalist argument, please keep arguments to talk pages. If a subject is not agreed upon amongst experts, an encyclopedia article is not the place to list every single piece of opposing evidence, you should just summarise the disagreement. Arniep 14:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Material needs to appear in the copernicus article. It makes no sense to have an article of this sort as a result of a compromise between warring factions on Copernicus. Instead, they need to reach a consensus. --Pierremenard 11:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I closed the original AfD as "no consensus". This time I vote delete. JIP | Talk 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is just a talk page thread given its own article; the only result of splitting it out is to give the various POV pushers even more space for their bickering. OK, that's a bit extreme; even so, the article as it stands is quite good enough. There is no problem saying he was born in the town of Thorn in what is now Poland but was then part of Prussia. Or something. It's mostly revisionism anyway. I recommend that they rename it Peachblossom Island and have done with it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 22:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe "Peachblossom Island" would be as toponymic a settlement in the case of a native of Toruń (Thorn) as it was in the case that you linked. Better idea, though, than Solomon's compromise in 1 Kings 3:15-28. Barno 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea, Solomon's compromise. Please change the beginning of the Copernicus article to his well known latin name and declare him "Half Polish, half German" (or the other way around, in alpabetical order). Currently it says "Mikołaj Kopernik ... Polish" which is hardly a compromise.--Matthead 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I applaud your creative use of ellipses. The article currently says Mikołaj Kopernik ..., more commonly known by the Latin form Nicolaus Copernicus, was an... astronomer, mathematician... He is now usually described as being Polish. Which from my experience is accurate. Every single mention of him that I've come across in English, calls him a Polish astronomer. --BadSeed 11:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge synopsis to a one-paragraph section in parent article (or even revise one sentence in the Biography section) and protect, or at least organize watchers to work against edit wars. Barno 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retracted vote after consideration of Matthead's comment below. Theoretically the various language Wikipedias are supposed to be one thing in a choice of languages, not sources of substantially different content. If the "pl" and "de" wikipedias have documented a real controversy that extends beyond a couple of nutcases, and legitimate references can show its importance outside purely local talk and WP and mirrors, then the "en" version should have at least a bit of encyclopedic overview. I agree with nominator that such "controversies" are not generally WP material. Barno 02:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This issue seems to have a centuries-old history and it's very unlikely that Wikipedia can finally solve it in a way that makes everybody happy - or is everybody happy yet? Trying to ignore the problem by deleting the separate nationality article moves the battle back into the main article or its talk were it is even uglier. There's a separate article in Polish Wikipedia as well as in the German. The best solution is to make and keep the Copernicus article itself nice, neutral and calm, and to sort out the nationality article rather than erase it. This seems to be unacceptable for at least two persons, though - my attempt to put some structure to it was tagged utterly pointless and rewarded by this deletion tag. There are already examples in history where attempts for deletion were considered "the Final solution" ... --Matthead 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note Matthead is German, and the article is basically about whether Copernicus was German or Polish. Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, does not exist to pronounce what is correct and what is not. I don't think what nationality Copernicus is or was is something absolutely fundemental to why he is notable as a person, therefore there should not be a separate article on the subject. Arniep 10:37, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. The final tally was 42 delete, 18 keep, 11 merge. I discounted 8 votes (7K/1D) for being either from newbies or not having real reasons (e.g., "it exists" -- my big toe exists but it doesn't deserve an article). Even if I had kept them, we'd have 43–25, or 63% delete. Also note that most merge votes were "merge or delete." This really should be a merge IMHO, which should satisfy the inclusionist bloc who don't want to see the content deleted. Really, we're talking 44Kb for a list of people? The vote stacking also really disturbs me. I noticed that a number of the people in the inclusionist bloc all voted on the same AfD discussions, all right in a row, which strongly implies they were here only because of their wikiphilosophy (still, I didn't discount their votes). howcheng {chat} 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Louisiana Baptist University people

edit

Note - this page has been refactored. Comments have been moved to the talk page Please try to stay on-topic and focus on the article and the contributions. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: I - Puppetry and RfC discussion
List of mostly non-notable people connected (sometimes loosely) with a diploma mill attended by the originator of the article. A.J.A. 02:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: II - Accrediatation discussion

note: This is Heaven Helpers first edit in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelvant. As it has been shown, 60 universities have entries and a list of people. --Jason Gastrich 22:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant to his vote, which had a rational about the notability of the school but suggested renaming it, which strongly suggests he thought he was voting on whether there should be any article about it at all. The other lists aren't relevant because if we take out the deadwood (i.e., the red links and the links that are going to go red and the people only marginally connected to the mill), there's hardly anything left. Plenty of schools have a lot of notable graduates. The mill you're wasting your time at? Not so much. A.J.A. 22:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're used for many universities, institutes, and colleges.[7] --Jason Gastrich 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're right. That is a very impressive list of 60 universities. Is there are seperate category for non-accredited universities? Or will we have to create a new category for this list? David D. (Talk) 05:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know. It's a good thing and par for the course on Wikipedia. There isn't an unaccredited category specifically for lists right now. You can create one if you like. --Jason Gastrich 05:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: III - User has nine edits

See: IV - Rights

There's nothing vote stacking or wrong with encouraging people to vote. --Jason Gastrich 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Funny, isn't it, that when an AfD concerns an article of yours that people never seen before come crawling out of the woodwork to vote with you? Mark K. Bilbo 14:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's of interest to very few people? There are 59 lists like it. Do you happen to know how many of those are important to how many different people? --Jason Gastrich 18:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the 59 others are accredited and the schools are actually rather significant on their own. Harvestdancer 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(strong) First of all, the nom uses very subjective language. Diploma mill is a pretty crappy spin to put on things. Second, there may be someone who wants to do research on the school and its associates, why not have a page? Brokenfrog 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a page for the school itself, which lists notable alums. This list is redundant to that page. -Harvestdancer 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (strong) I don't see how this is necessary with the inclusion of notables on LBU's page. The discussion seems to be mostly reasonable peppered other than the personal attacks from the author. I would say that there would be vote stacking. I received notice of this from a email list headed by Jason Gastrich himself. If I could get a place to host I would be happy to post said email. To quote from that message:

"...Several weeks ago, JCSM (Jesus Christ Saves Ministries) noticed this trend and created a new ministry called Wiki4Christ. It's an organization that exists to make sure Christians have a united and represented voice on Wikipedia. As you may imagine, unbelievers also edit there and they actively try to silence Christian input and revert our contributions; especially Christian biographies! This is where we need you, now.

Yesterday, the entries below were nominated for deletion. This means there will be a vote on whether or not to keep them. Please come and let your voice be heard! This endeavor will only take 10-15 minutes and it will be something you can do with your online time that will further the kingdom of God. Wouldn't you like to vote to keep Christian entries on Wikipedia?..."

He goes on to give links to all of his articles that are noted for deletion. He also doesn't point out these articles are authored by himself. - I would say that this languaged is charged to skew voting. I have been a longtime fan and user of Wiki and this is the first time I've been interested in its process. Jazzscrub 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: V - Paranoia

  • Strong Keep university-related topics are notable. Cynical 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any actual notables into the university article, otherwise delete. Solicited a favourable vote from me via email because I am listed as an inclusionist. I would like to point out that the inclusionist motto is "with truth preserved."...not "with vanity preserved." Well established, accredited institutions usually do warrant a seperate list of notable graduates...Harvard, for example, is very likely to have a huge list of notable graduates which would be too long for the main article...but LBU's list (even if they are all truly notable) is short enough to fit fine into the main article. If this article is kept, then I vote to have an undeletable list of all people who have read the Invisible Pink Unicorn article. bcatt 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any actual notables into the university article, otherwise delete. --Devein 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with original article. This AfD appears to be in danger of going off-topic. This is suppose to be about whether or not the article is worth keeping, not about whether or not LBU is a "degree mill" or not, or the merits of accreditation, or other stuff this AfD is bringing up. Let's get back on topic, does this article deserve to exist? I say yes, why not, otherwise, we should begin removing other school's lists. It could probably be paired down to be just notable alumni, but it still deserves to exist.--Azathar 23:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The quoted phrase from your post above, "or the merits of accreditation," is incorrect. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of vanity. I agree with the merge, but Louisiana Baptist University is an unaccredited institution of higher learning and is not notable enough to deserve its own page for alumini. The only thing more ridiculous is that there are vanity biographies made of these non-notable people featured on the alumini. Finally, Jason Gastrich is making personal attacks and encouraging people who obviously do not know the entire situation to blindly support him via email. I am not criticizing Christianity, but this method of vote stacking is inexplicably ludicrous. I am trying very hard to restraining myself from making stronger comments, but that may not be possible in the near future. SycthosTalk 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Upon reviewing the Wiki 4 Christ site, and its objectives, I have several comments to make. It is fine that you are creating this organization, but Wikipedia's vanity rules take priority over everything. Lists of alumini on unaccredited universities and biographies on non-notable Christian missionaries are unacceptable. If you have a dispute, create your own wiki site. SycthosTalk 02:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for your comment. However, I disagree with you and I believe that some unaccredited universities deserve lists of people associated with them. For instance, Bob Jones University is unaccredited. Why shouldn't they have a list? The fact remains that there are many notable alumni and a list is a good thing to have, so they can be organized and, well, listed. The fact that they haven't sought government accreditation means little; especially in light of its alumni and academic requirements. --Jason Gastrich 02:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, BJU is accredited. A.J.A. 02:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gastrich you made two errors: LBU did apply for accreditation and was denied. And BJU does have accreditation from Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), Accreditation Commission, see [15].
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.196 (talk • contribs) .
I don't see anything about them applying and being denied. Also, this link doesn't tell me that they are accredited, now. I've read that they have applied for TRACS accreditation and were waiting on their decision. --Jason Gastrich 02:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The LBU 1998 request by TRACS (the people who approved BJU) was denied-- this was explained once to you already on the LBU talk page. A discussion about the inquiry with Steve Levicoff[16] and the denial of the approval in 2000[17].
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.196 (talk • contribs) .
The search isn't working on my computer, but this article states that Bob Jones University has recieved accreditation. SycthosTalk 02:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be exact, they have candidacy status [18], which means they're in basic compliance with the standards. It's apparently a kind of probationary accreditation. IIRC, even before they were accredited BJU was considered to have one of the top accountancy programs in the country, which to my mind is enough to overcome the presumption that an unaccredited school is a mill. (Still wouldn't want to go there.) A.J.A. 03:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google isn't the only indicator of notablity. --Jason Gastrich 02:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. However, from a Yahoo! test, Louisiana Baptist University scored 1,570 hits while Bob Jones University scored 772,000. The margin of difference is simply too large to consider otherwise. From an Alexa test, Bob Jones University has a ranking of 82,173, while Louisiana Baptist University dosen't even have a ranking. SycthosTalk 02:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As others have stated, these seems partially redundant with the notables list, and the author's arguments do not persuade me of this list's worthiness (or indeed, the worthiness of many of the list's items) KrazyCaley 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, if not delete. I may be an inclusionist, but I'm not stupid. —Nightstallion (?) 06:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any actual notables into the university article, otherwise delete. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Louisiana Baptist University. Alphax τεχ 07:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Louisiana Baptist University. Yes, Gastrich, I'm an inclusionist. I also have absolutely no problem with alerting people to ongoing votes, and think that people who vote against simply because of that are being incredibly dense, but that doesn't mean I don't weigh the article's merits once alerted. I'm not going to pass judgment on whether LSU is a diploma mill or not, but don't think I'm just a tool to use for voting keep on every article on the deletion listings. I'm going to give each of the articles you sent to me careful consideration, and will vote accordingly. If you were expecting me to charge in and vote keep without reading anything, you don't know me very well. Rogue 9 10:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Useful content, but doesn't need to stand in an article of its own. --StuffOfInterest 12:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep We can't just throw out something related to something intellectual (in this case, a university) while other articles related to things like sport are kept. It is not of stub length, and is useful and informative. This could save someone a lot of searching. - 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini lobster telephone
  • Keep. Useful content is useful content; keep it around. Kerobaros 13:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)kerobaros[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a perfectly viable encyclopedia article on a public institution that could very well be the subject of someone's research in the future. In such an event, wikipedia would come in handy. That is what wikipedia is for. I haven't heard a single good argument to why this should be deleted. There is no wikipedia article on "Diplomamill". User:Itake|Itake]] 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keeep I think it can be notable and it is interesting. Gubbubu 22:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
abstain I don't know enough about this here yet so I'm abstaining for now. But it seems to me that alot of these articles here, the bio's I mean, pass into the notable stage and are verifiable. I'm not a christian by a long shot and I have issues with fundamentalism in a big way but that doesn't mean these folks don't deserve to be here. The criteria for me here is, "is this article useful as a way to initiate research" and clearly it is. If I was interested in, say, the history of baptist thinking or wanted to make a wash list of baptist notable, I could use this as a start. A PERFECT WIKI ARTICLE in my opion.
And just to be above board here, I was asked to come vote here by the author. This is not vote stacking or Ballot stuffing , it is simply campaigning. Those of you opposed to this author or these entries will just have to trust that the people who are brought in can make up their own minds regardless of how they got here. Personally, I'm questioning the objectivity and neutrality of both sides here. This is an encyclopedia without page limits and in order to avoid charges of bias especially in these controversial areas, we should always err on the side of inclusiveness.Ginar 14:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These articles aren't controversial in any way. The self-proclaimed "deletecrew" that haunts this site makes topics like this controversial by attacking them because of their own POV views.Itake 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Comment - How many people are here because Gastrich emailed all the inclusionists on the vain hope that you automatically vote to keep articles? An argument for delete can be made that should be acceptable to inclusionists - put the valuable intellectual content where it belongs, in the LBU article, and no content is lost. I know that there are several such inclusionists here, although since Gastrich used email instead of talk pages, there's no Wiki trail of proof like there is for his wikichrist crowd. -Harvestdancer 15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you atleast try and hide your own POV like all the others do? Seriously, I'm asking again. Give me a good argument why this should be deleted. Itake 16:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. Unlike Harvard, LBU is not as significant an institution of higher learning. Some schools warrant their own page of notable alumni simply because of the size of such a list. This page, on the other hand, can easily be included in the LBU article without any loss of content and therefore, by mergist principles, does not warrant a separate page. Will you try to hide your POV, like you say everyone but the two of us tries to do? -Harvestdancer 16:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do hide my own POV. And comparing the LBU to Harvard is nothing short of silly. They aren't even in the same league. The LBU is noteworthy in its own way. Its an american institution, which is why it listed on the english wikipedia. On the Swedish wikipedia, alot of small schools have their own entries. None complains. So no, thats not a good reason. There are no other articles with these names, so there's no name conflict. There's no nothing, except silly notions about the standard of education on the school. This guy is by all accounts an important person, so he deserves a page. Itake 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: XII - Email

See: XIII - Bias?

User has a total of 14 edits. Arbustoo 06:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DELETE; -- why not have an article for every unknown fringe person who graduated from South Succotash High School in an article. This is just ridiculous self-promotion. Jim62sch 02:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Riiiiiiight. --Jason Gastrich 07:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments to those that oppose keeping this and your emails to those who will likely side with your views really shows your character. You are not right and thus only way you get people to support you is to a play the religious martyr role--- which many people don't buy. Arbustoo 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they already appear on the Louisiana Baptist University page. I don't really see why people are talking about keeping the names page (they are already on the article page) or merge. Arbustoo 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see why people are talking about keeping the names page? That's what this nomination is about! Furthermore, there are 68 other "names pages"[20] like it for various universities. They haven't been merged with their university. --Jason Gastrich 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many times are you going to post you abstain. Arbustoo 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope something is going to be done about this ballot stuffing. Arbustoo 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]
    • Dude, it's not a Christians vs. the Detroit Lions situation. I'm an atheist (because I reject Christ's far-left socialist teachings)--I want to keep it because anything that actually exists is worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 15:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly my point. This shouldn't be about religion, only about what's best for wikipedia... Spawn Man 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: XIV - Wiggins 2

See: XV - Mote, beam, etc

I think the reason this has gotten so blown up is because Jason recruted help by emailing inclusionists. Deletionists did the same thing as well. Really, let's keep this between the two camps and not bring the gods into this! Factions are killing wikipedia. Brokenfrog
Anti-factionalist fearmongering ;-) Ruby 03:06, 23 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Watershed Wrestling

edit

Speedy delete vanity organization with only 130 hits on Google. SycthosTalk 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You do not need to bring speedy delete reqests here. Just tag the page with {{db}} and include the reason for speedy deletion after a |. See WP:CSD. Stifle 17:40, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbouha

edit

Google search turns up ~80 results, none of them related to article. --NaconKantari 03:02, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extrovert magazine

edit

Nn online magazine. Nn Alexa rank. 193 Google hits (10 unique). No media coverage. Fails WP:V.-- Perfecto 03:05, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity_Survivor

edit

Delete. Seems like a hoax. CrazyLegsKC 03:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think it's a very interesting concept, based on the fact that it's a book.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrstyonthewall2 (talk • contribs) .


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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check Bush

edit

Hoax. The terms Apollo Zaros and Nakosis Droma turn up a combines total of zero hits. Bachrach44 03:19, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backwoods terror

edit

Assuming this is not a hoax (Google returns zero hits for "'Backwoods terror' giancarlo") it is still a crystal ball article on an unreleased film by a non-notable filmmaker. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 03:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah this movie is in the process of being approved on imdb thank you


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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Grim

edit

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backwoods terror — non-notable character from a non-notable unreleased film by a non-notable filmmaker. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Grim is a character in Backwoods Terror, and is non notible because of the fact Backwoods Terror is in the 2-4 week process of being approved on imbd.com


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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbs Smith, Publisher

edit

Delete. Looks like advertising, and link to website added after advert tag was added Avi 03:37, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was merge and redirect to Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide. howcheng {chat} 19:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Méridien

edit

Resembles an advertisement, no context Fightindaman 03:38, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new iraqi airforce

edit

This may be a piece of original research/essay/speculation piece on the future of the Air Force within the Iraqi Militart forces. Blnguyen 03:44, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sports Fix

edit

Non-notable website, 404'd and no alexa ranking --NaconKantari 03:53, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AP U.S. Review Terms

edit

Delete This page appears to violate the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section of the What Wikipedia is not page.

Question So is it ok if I just do this here: [21]?


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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KatrinaData

edit

Unverifiable project started this month by obscure company.-- Perfecto 04:04, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Petaholmes (A7) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-18 11:37Z


Michael J. Hillman

edit

This is an article about a person of no historical significance. Zelmerszoetrop 04:02, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Non-notable website/forum, only 293 members --NaconKantari 04:16, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Geogre. Punkmorten 16:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Dance

edit

This article appears to be nothing but nonsense and is certainly about a non-notable topic. —Cleared as filed. 04:26, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marx Myths & Legends

edit

Website with no apparent notability beyond that of the most websites. 676 google hits. Bkwillwm 04:28, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Timelines.com

edit

Delete -appears to be merely an advertisement for this website mtz206 04:43, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 19:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mal Couch

edit

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 01:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal at best. I don't see the notability. A.J.A. 04:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • An added comment: Those concerning themselves with LBU or the entry's author are completely missing the point. This guy fulfils WP:BIO's guidelines for authors better than scores of authors who are included without a thought as to where their degrees came from. How can you deny his notability? Is it because he's a fundamentalist? They can be notable, too. - Jaysus Chris 08:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean you didn't examine the entry? --Jason Gastrich 18:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does not mean that. It means that Stifle agrees with JzG on the reasons. That's all it means. Would you use that disparaging comment if someone voted to keep per someone else, or are you trying to make this vote appear meaningless? -Harvestdancer 19:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Blnguyen, there are 1100 LBU students and thousands of graduates. Did you ever stop to think that comments like these could be offensive to thousands of people? LBU is unaccredited, but it certainly doesn't fit the criteria of a diploma mill. How many diploma mills have a campus with on-campus courses, teachers, and faculty? Not to mention Jerry Falwell is giving the graduation ceremony address. I'm sure the biggest name in fundamentalist Christianity speaks at tons of diploma mills. JK. --Jason Gastrich 05:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clutching at straws, there. Charles Matthews
  • Delete Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he's writen stuff then he should at least have a little slice of wikipedia? I mean, Wikipedia is huge, everyone can have a share can't they? Everyone thinks that because he isn't in the news, that he shouldn't be included in wikipedia, the so called "sum of all human knowledge". But how do we know he isn't influencial? He effects hundreds with his words..... Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete. Mal Couch is unnotable and does not meet Wiki standards of notability. Arbustoo 00:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough. (BTW I am a gay lapsed Catholic with no religious belief, so there is no BAC agenda here). FearÉIREANN \(caint) 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a prolific published author. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:12, 23 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete as per the evidence provided by Jonel. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zio's Pizza

edit

Non-notable pizza parlor. Unfortunately, a pizza parlor is not technically a person or group of persons for speedy deletion. Delete slowly, then. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:07, Jan. 18, 2006

Comment - the Mazzio's website shows no locations in Nebraska (FireFox v.1.0.3 worked for me); however, it is unclear whether that the location list is only for locations branded "Mazzio's" or whether it is inclusive of "Zio's Italian Kitchen" or "Zio's Italian Pizza" locations, which are owned by the Mazzio's company. Nevertheless, I don't think the Zio's in the article is related to Mazzio's, though, nor to the Zio's Pizza in Philadelphia [24]. -- Jonel | Speak 02:05, 24 January 2006 (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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ice

edit

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 01:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. SycthosTalk 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a complete lie. I never admitted using sockpuppets to "aid myself in AfD"; nor have I ever done this, even when I did use sockpuppets in my first days in Wikipedia!
      • If you look at the history, an admin checked IPs and confirmed that I never did this to sway a vote and I still never have done this.
      • You need to get your facts straight and show that you care for the folks at Wikipedia. This atrocious lie/accusation at the top of many pages is inexcusable and I'd like an apology; and I think the good people that you may have influenced with this lie should receive an apology as well. --Jason Gastrich 04:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I acknowledge your attempts to evangelize Wikipedia, but your argument will not stand without a statement disputing against it. First of all, if your statements remain true, then why is Wiggins2 blocked 24 hours for "external campaigning group spamming talk pages to pack Wikipedia debates"? User:Big Daddy is another one of your main sockpuppets. If you look at its contribution history, there is no doubt that you have violated WP:SOCK for using sockpuppets to create an "illusion for a broader support" for your position.
        • I do not appreciate your constant and veiled use of euphemisms and words/phrases with a slightly more negative connotation when used against others. This is a complete lie is not correct, as you have, in fact, used sockpuppetry for AfDs. Also, I, in fact, do care for the folks on Wikipedia. If I didn't care, I would not even mind editing any mistakes I catch in articles, reverting and simple vandalism I see, or voicing my opinion in Wikipedia debates. I openly apologize to you if I have offended you, but I would also request you to conform to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Thanks. SYCTHOStalk 05:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sadly, once again Gastrich makes statements here which are at their heart disingenuous. Gastrich's suspected sockpuppetry is subject of an ongoing investigation and RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. There his actions here and on other AFD's are being reviewed and discussed by the community as part of its dispute resolution process. FeloniousMonk 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination

edit

Not everybody with some kind of "ministry" is notable. A.J.A. 05:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and votes

edit
  • Strong keep. Editor nominated 10 Christian biography entries for deletion, today. It's hard to assume good faith. Plus, Thomas Ice is a very notable author, debater, speaker, and leader. In fact, he has over 37,000 hits on Google.com [25]. --Jason Gastrich 05:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A load of hits on Yahoo, too. Until we refine the search criteria. And even refining it gives us gems like this: Saint Thomas Ice Arena ... The Saint Thomas Ice Arena is located just across from the Saint Thomas Academy school in Mendota Heights ... Copyright © 2004 Saint Thomas Ice Arena. Last modified: 06/10/05 ...www.saintthomasicearena.com - 12k - Cached - More from this site" Jim62sch 23:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if we refine the search to this, "thomas ice christian", we get "Results 1 - 6 of about 11 for "thomas ice christian"". Wow, impressive. Jim62sch 23:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. The correct search term is "thomas ice" christian which yields 21,700 hits. As anyone can prove, at least 25,000 of the 37,400 "Thomas Ice" hits are about this author. Probably many more, around 30,000. Even so, this does not mean "notable" to me... Actually, anyone with some knowledge of Christendom and eyes in his head (or fingers on his hand) can see that Thomas Ice is notable, both positively and negatively, to millions of people. OK, where notability is disputed, references can clinch it, but really, in this case it's like trying to prove apples taste good (218 Google hits). AvB ÷ talk 16:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 37,800 hits at Google, not nearly all of which are this person. Notability may exist within a small segment of Christendom, but is the opinion is apparently not widespread; and Wiki isn't here to cater to the hero worship of a single editor or a relative few. - WarriorScribe 05:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, he has likely written more books than you've read. --Jason Gastrich 05:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack noted with amusement. - WarriorScribe 05:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A display of his much-touted debating skills. Jim62sch 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Important author" to whom? By what criteria? - WarriorScribe 05:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To those that read (written for your amusement, of course). --Jason Gastrich 06:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack again noted, with amusement. - WarriorScribe 06:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't went get some sales statistics and prove this either way?
Mein Kampf sold quite well also. Jim62sch 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mein Kampf sold extremely well, and is notable. Bad example. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about Mao Zedong's book? Jim62sch 00:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That also sold extremely well and is very notable. Another bad example. --Cyde Weys 23:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Jim62sch 01:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please explain who published his books and cite where 5,000 people have read them. WP:BIO You keep saying "notable" and offer no citation, much like the article.
  • Keep You may not know him but in the world of Christian Prophecy he is a prominent exponent of the pre-tribulation position. I would never dream of asking for deletion of articles about individuals who have a similar influence and yet hold other views. Admittedly the article could do with some improvement and additional biographical and professional information. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 09:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you weren't using your "fair eye" on the Mike Randall entry. You voted to delete because you said he was the president of a diploma mill. In fact, he is the president of a regionally accredited university. I hope you change your vote for that entry. --Jason Gastrich 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's "regionally accredited university" in the sense of "nationally un-accredited university" - i.e. diploma mill. Not that you have any conflict of interest, right? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 12:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, "regionally accredited university" really doesn't mean anything. It's vacuous nonsense meant to deceive. Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Jim62sch 22:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:JzG and Jim haven't a clue. Mike Randall is the president of a regionally accredited university. Regional accreditation is the highest, governmental accreditation in the land. I do hope you guys look it up, get your facts straight, and stop personal attacks; especially when you're wrong. --Jason Gastrich 04:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my vote because frankly the behavior of a lot of people related to this issue has turned me off. --Cyde Weys 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're either mistaken or being misleading. The government doesn't accredit schools. Read School_accreditation. FeloniousMonk 06:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Of the books listed, about 25% of them are sold at Amazon.com. The ones that are sold usually place between 250,000 - 500,000 on the popularity of most sold books. The most popular is the commentary on the Left Behind series.--Esprit15d 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not hard to get an ISBN work, properly package to be sold at Amazon.
  • Keep reasonable number of books found in mainstream (Amazon, B&N, such). And the dispensational fundamentalist camp is notable, however, unfortunate that is (I keep wanting to apologize that my people gave the world Darby). Mark K. Bilbo 18:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that being on Amazon makes a book notable or mainstream. Many of the ones they sell are self published. David D. (Talk) 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point. However, at least some of his books are with (albeit Christian) publishing houses (such as Harvest House, New Leaf). And he has written and/or edited with LaHaye who is a major figure in the dispensational fundamentalist movement. Ice may not be as notable as a Falwell but doesn't seem--to me at least--to be obscure either. I'd say he's "notable enough." Maybe I should say "weak keep?" Mark K. Bilbo 20:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article was created by Jason Gastrich to promote his school as a mainstream institution. This is only one of around 10 articles he created promoting his religion/degree/school. See List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people. --Q
  • Strong keep published author B.ellis 21:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak KeepDelete I agree with Q. but the fact is that this fellow's output is enough to allow him a mention. Also, it is possible more sceptical content may eventually be produced; this lunatic believes in the rapture lol. Based on further comments below, changing my vote. The vote stacking is unacceptable and the provenance of the author's qualifications ludicrous. Eusebeus 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quantity over quality and relevance? Jim62sch 00:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, two things. First, since the alleged vote stacking, there haven't been any votes to keep; just to delete. My alleged vote stacking simply asked four or five people to vote (not one way or the other). So, you being strongly influenced by that doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, voting one way out of spite isn't in Wikipedia's best interests, so I'm sure that'll be noted by many as well. Honorable Wikipedians will examine the entry and decide one way or the other. --Jason Gastrich 18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Gastrich, allow me to say for myself, I am an Afd regular and I often vote to delete, not because I am a deletionist but because those doing the nominating usually have good reason. That said, I also do due diligence. I am very proud of having "saved" several articles, including a Russian folk song [26] and a truly tacky but notable drinking game [27]. I also chastise those whom I suspect of bad-faith nominations. I do not consider these bad-faith noms. It appears to me that you, as you cannot rewrite the article for LBU since it is protected, have decided to take another tack and make a list of people who went to LBU and write articles about them. While it is understandable that you would want to try to gain for your alma mater as much credibility as can be gleaned, filling the pages of WP with articles about people whose main claim to fame is that they got their diploma from the same place as you is vanity. You have compounded vanity with attempts at vote-stacking, and now with personal attacks[28][29] and accusations of "spite voting" which is nonsense in my case, and I believe in the case of every editor voting here. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a way, the purpose of vote-stacking has been served -- a handful of people heard of the Frozen Thomas prior to this AfD, now scores of people have. Excellent PR work...or is that evangelizing? Self-promotion? Pride? (Oh, no, can't be the last, that's one of those sin things). Jim62sch 00:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (weak) per KillerChihuahua. David D. (Talk) 19:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Strong) He nominated 10 articles by the same person on the same subject for deletion. That just reeks of bad faith. Add to that the subject's being a well known and prolific author (albeit with an odd subject matter) warrents a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not paper!Brokenfrog 20:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (strong) I don't see how this is necessary with the inclusion of actual notables on LBU's page. The discussion seems to be mostly reasonable peppered other than the personal attacks from the author. I would say that there would be vote stacking. I received notice of this from a email list headed by Jason Gastrich himself. If I could get a place to host I would be happy to post said email. To quote from that message:

"...Several weeks ago, JCSM (Jesus Christ Saves Ministries) noticed this trend and created a new ministry called Wiki4Christ. It's an organization that exists to make sure Christians have a united and represented voice on Wikipedia. As you may imagine, unbelievers also edit there and they actively try to silence Christian input and revert our contributions; especially Christian biographies! This is where we need you, now.

Yesterday, the entries below were nominated for deletion. This means there will be a vote on whether or not to keep them. Please come and let your voice be heard! This endeavor will only take 10-15 minutes and it will be something you can do with your online time that will further the kingdom of God. Wouldn't you like to vote to keep Christian entries on Wikipedia?..."

He goes on to give links to all of his articles that are noted for deletion. He also doesn't point out these articles are authored by himself. - I would say that this languaged is charged to skew voting. I have been a longtime fan and user of Wiki and this is the first time I've been interested in its process. Jazzscrub 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant links to evidence of what Jazzscrub describes: [30] jcsm.org/Online/WeeklyDevotions440.htm FeloniousMonk 22:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is America. Its not a University just because it calls itself one. I could open a hot-dog stand University if I wanted. It just wouldn't be accredited, like LBU. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this post shows your ignorance regarding LBU and its requirements. You can learn about the university here, though [31]. --Jason Gastrich 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your campaign here to promote your diploma mill is its most notable aspect. Who knows, maybe they'll name a "hall" in your honor... FeloniousMonk 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The requirements being that one must accept Jesus as his personal saviour and believe in the accuracy of the Bible. BTW, Jason: KC is hardly ignorant, rather, KC is very well-versed on a wide variety of subjects and researches before commenting. Jim62sch 00:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. So . . . wanna vote? --Jason Gastrich 07:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think your analysis may be in error. Thomas Ice is essentially a nobody in the real world. He has a small cult following, and produced books of little or no value to anyone but those who share his rather unorthodox views. (This may seem harsh, but reality sometimes bites). In a way, what would really be best would be an article on "Inerrantist Writers" (or something like that) that mentioned Ice, but wasting kilobytes on this guy alone is a tad ridiculous. Jim62sch 11:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Not one single good argument against deletion here. This dude is the head of an institution founded by Tim LaHayes. Tim LaHayes is more noteworthy then all you people put together. This article isn't going anywhere, it is staying right here. Itake 15:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an arugument from ignorance (you don't know about people voting here) as well as an assertion (Tim is noteworthy) and not very convincing. Certainly much less convincing than the arguments to delete. David D. (Talk) 18:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tim LaHaye (ain't no flippin' "s" on the end of his name) is also a bad writer, a bad logician, a twisted thinker and a sower of discord. Heading-up any organization started by him is no great achievement. Jim62sch 01:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a legitimate author of many books, notable on Google, even in Brazil!. Walkerma 15:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. None of the above seems to challenge that he's an author sufficiently widely read to justify inclusion. Disagreeing with what he wrote, however strongly, isn't a reason for deletion. If someone cares to provide evidence that the many listed publications are all vanity press, I will reconsider. But the problem is, Amazon isn't a good guide for authors like this who sell directly or through lobby groups. Andrewa 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I hadn't heard of him, but I did an Amazon.com query, and that gave 498 results in Books. Sounds like he's at least a prolific published author (fine for inclusion per WP:BIO), and even if he's not as well known, Tim LaHaye definitely is, as one of the authors of the bestselling Left Behind series. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Um, no. You left your search open so that it caught books with "Ice Cream" in the title written by people with the first name "Thomas." Put quotes around the name and you get no more than 42. Many of which are translations of a single work, at least one is about Thomas Ice (et al), several are "pocket books," and the greater number he is a contributor to (as in an article or so), not the sole nor primary author. You have to be careful with Amazon searches. Particularly with names that have common words in them such as "Ice." Mark K. Bilbo 03:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_(second_nomination) "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_(second_nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Itake 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, posting the e-mail was insinuating that the e-mail is bullshit. Nice catch. Jim62sch 02:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence that Tommy used Lulu Publishing? --Jason Gastrich 07:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher is Harvest House Publishers not Lulu Publishing. --Vizcarra 18:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His point was ANYONE who wants to fork out a few bucks can get their works sold at Amazon. Arbustoo 02:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think his point was that Amazon.com hits do not mean anything, with the implication that Vizcarra's link is useless. But that is putting the world on its head. Amazon is an extremely useful tool when checking out someone's publications. They list all titles they can deliver - new, used, Print on demand - anything. Thomas Ice has 42 hits on Amazon where he is listed as author, co-author, editor, or subject (yes - there are books by others ABOUT and AGAINST Thomas Ice's views). From there it is easy to check the publishers. One mouseclick away from the list linked by Vizcarra one can see the real publisher. What is easier, saying "Lulu" or clicking on a link? Vizcarra gave full information. Click here and check it out. This article should never have been nominated for AfD. AvB ÷ talk 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --badlydrawnjeff 13:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- this is clearly a notable person, and not only in view of the number of books he has sold (BTW, most titles predate POD etc.). I'll try to free some time to look up references. AvB ÷ talk 18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If he's writen stuff, (& a lot of it!), then he should at least have a little slice of wikipedia? I mean, Wikipedia is huge, everyone can have a share can't they? Everyone thinks that because he isn't in the news, that he shouldn't be included in wikipedia, the so called "sum of all human knowledge". But how do we know he isn't influencial? He effects hundreds with his words..... Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]
  • Strong Delete of unnotable article to promote alumni of LBU. Arbustoo 02:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 20 published books makes him notable. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - anyone can publish a book. Ashibaka tock 18:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 20 published books, also connected to LaHaye and that's a Christian slant which has quite some influence in American Christianity. Disagreement with author or subject of an article is no reason for deletion. --Irmgard 00:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Gastrich sockpuppets

Those listed at Requests for CheckUser: [32]

Keep ridiculous to delete an author with this many publications. California12 02:30 18 January 2006

Wiggins2

Click the link and learn [33] Jim62sch 02:04, 22 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regulated capitalism

edit

Article is POV and original research. There is no point in trying to create a different and better article with the same name because it would be redundant with mixed economy, capitalism, regulation, and others. A redirect is not necessary because nothing links to this article. Delete. Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:08, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was keep. Note that there is a general consensus that articles on high schools are to be kept. howcheng {chat} 19:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horseheads High School

edit

This tiny insignificant High School doesn't warrent it's own article. Before it was written in a non-NPOV. — Moe ε 05:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:55, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 19:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Vandal

edit

Band vanity. This borders on speedy. To cut the crap from the article - it's basically a band thats main claim to fame is a single gig at Sydney University - definitely not encyclopaedic Werdna648T/C\@ 05:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: One of those sources started opening popups and trying to install software on my machine. --Martyman-(talk) 02:34, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Geogre. Punkmorten 16:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hikaru_and_Michy

edit

Delete: Patent nonsense. Dbarnes 05:10, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was transwiki. howcheng {chat} 19:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stinginess

edit

This is just a dictionary definition Greebo the Cat 05:12, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FBC

edit

Looks like an NN internet radio station Werdna648T/C\@ 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an internet radio station (sorry don't know what NN means) however it is part of the fur fandom something rarely understood or with alot of misunderstanding surrounding it. Has over 250 official listeners and a team of more than 15 people working on it including myself. It is played during Fur Cons and has it's own line of merchendise... surely this makes it notable (and considering people keep asking me about it having a wiki for it is considerably easier than having to tell people over and over). It is currently incomplete however and people are planning to come and add to it over the next few days. If you give us a chance to complete it before you delete every new article it might prove to be of some use. TornadoCreatorT/C\@ 05:48, 18 January 2006

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 of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 19:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Jeffrey

edit

Obscure, non-notable writer. This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 01:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A.J.A. 05:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This editor nominated 4 Christian biography entries for deletion, today. It's hard to assume good faith. By the way, Grant Jeffrey is very notable. He has written numerous books and has over 11 million Google hits [37].--Jason Gastrich 05:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment the number of nominations by the editor is irrelevant to the issue. Mark K. Bilbo 19:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment by "11 million Google hits" you must mean about 19K right?.
  • Keep, per the persuasive commentary of Jaysus Chris. If the original author or the editors of a piece bothered to make the case for notability as he has done, rather than whine about deletions, complain about imaginary "vandalism," and recruit or post "keep" votes that say nothing more than "very notable" or "clearly notable," there would probably be fewer of these AfDs. Two more things: You get 11,000,000 hits if you don't know how to use a search engine. The fact is that, even if you properly search for "Grant Jeffrey" and include the quotes, you get just over 45,000 and, by the third page, you're running into lots of other people with the name, or identified as "Grant, Jeffrey." If you just type "Grant Jeffrey" in the search field without the quotes, you get every page that Google can find with either word or both words. One would think that one whom considers himself a web host and web page designer would know that. Second, there is no reason to disparage the editor on the subject of "good faith" simply because he has nominated several of Gastrich's articles for deletion. Jeffrey's reputation as "very notable" seems to occur only within a small segment of Christendom. By and large, the majority of Christians are either unaware of him or pay him no mind. - WarriorScribe 05:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds? Please describe which of the criteria he doesn't meet. --Jason Gastrich 21:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An independent source that shows a publishing history of 5,000 . See discussion above. Also see Plagiarism discussion. Arbustoo 00:36, 23 January 2006 (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 of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Combs

edit

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. SycthosTalk 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor figure "notable" mainly as the provost of a diploma mill. Delete. A.J.A. 05:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Editor has nominated 10 Christian biography entries for deletion, today. It's hard to assume good faith. Combs is very notable for his work on the Prophecy Study Bible, his television appearances, his work in the field of Bible prophecy, etc. --Jason Gastrich 05:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment resorting to personal attacks on the editor isn't helping your case. Mark K. Bilbo 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Number of deletion nominations are not an indicator of anything other than "good faith" simply because one person doesn't care to see his articles nominated. Subject is not "very notable" because he has a little-known Bible program and is not all that well known in the field of prophesy except within a small segment of Christendom. Not "very notable" because of one person's opinion. Notability is a result of concensus. - WarriorScribe 05:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well documented? There no citations in the body of the article. And Louisiana Baptist University is not well known by any stretch.
There have been no good reasons to delete Mike Randall. He's the president of a regionally accredited university, a pastor for 22 years, and a long-time editor of two publications. Please don't tell me that you are one of the ignorant ones still saying that his university is a diploma mill. --Jason Gastrich 05:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATTENTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_(second_nomination) "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_(second_nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Itake 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Itake, that is "meatpuppetry" at its finest. As for the complaints about the admin, we're right back to Argument by insinuation. I also received the same email, and frankly felt it was in bad faith--skirting the edges of honesty. Stow the complaints and cut the foul language. The article has been nominated: let the nomination take its course without raising personal issues. Justin Eiler 01:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppetry would be the user having all his friends register and then vote. ENLIGHTENING other wikipedian users about this problem is in no way meatpuppetry. The one who raised personal issues here was Cyde, accusing the author of using multies and cheating. That's bad, and it needs a counterreaction. There is nothing dishonest about that mail, not in one place does the author of the letter tell a lie or similar. He doesn't even tell, he doesn't even ENCOURAGE people to vote "Keep". Not meatpuppetry in any way, if you are going to continue accusing him of meatpuppetry you need to present a convincing argument for it. Otherwise it will only be a continuation of the lies and slander you people are already throwing the author. Itake 01:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, are you serious? What, precisely, do you think(?) this means? "I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries." Come on, dude, wake up and smell the, as you so aptly put it, bullshit. Jim62sch 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Itake: "Insinuating" ... this guy is shopping for votes calling those who want to delete the pages as people with "bad faith." Using Christ as a tool to get votes. Targeting those of religion with religion for keep votes. Arbustoo 03:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if not for the "diploma mill" for his other activities. --Vizcarra 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arbustoo 03:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Spondoolicks 20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this person does not meet WP:BIO. Cyde Weys 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I wouldn't like to be the closing admin. Stifle 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain with preference to merge. The article is very small & the article's subject is very unnotable. Although I would probably choose fixing rather than deletion, I have no real concern if it's delted or kept. I have no opinion. Therefore, I abstain. Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]
The only reason so many Christian articles were nominated in a big batch like this is because they were all created by the same user in a short period of time, and on non-notable people (or at least not notable enough to need their own article, I do think that some should certainly be highlighted in the main article of the institution they are connected to). This seems to be done with the intention of promoting an institution that the user is affiliated with, and not because the subjects of the articles are actual notable enough to warrant a dedicated article. The fact that they are Christian is coincidence. I would get the same reaction if I suddenly decided to create a batch of articles for all the instructors who taught at the photography school I went to (granted, some of them are quite notable, but many are not notable enough to warrant a dedicated article). bcatt 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know this, but not many people are going to take that it was a "coincidence". As I've said, this could unlock a misunderstood-holy-wiki-war!!!! Omigosh batman!!!!! Spawn Man 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh...maybe I should take a break from my usual wikianderings and do a bunch of articles on my school and it's faculty and alumni just so many of those will also be voted for deletion, just so I can show that these deletions aren't religiously biased. The most ridiculous part is that the ones screaming religious bias are the ones creating religiously biased articles...it is no more wrong to want to delete an article because it is religious, than it is to want to create an unnecessary article for promotionally religious purposes - they are almost the same thing. Wikipedia is not the place to debate or try to prove which is the "one true religion", it is a place to describe all the different types of religion from a completely NPOV. bcatt 05:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The following votes were deleted by User:Greatgavini in this edit.  ALKIVAR™  10:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! When did I ever do that???? I don't care about this article that much to be doing that. - Greatgavini 11:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, considering that the majority of the missing votes were for "keep", I would have to be very stupid to delete them if I was of the same opinion. - 15:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini talk

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 of the debate was keep. Note that I deleted Form (philosophy). If you want to fork it off, that's fine, but you've got to fix all the incoming links to Form so that they go to the right place. howcheng {chat} 19:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Form

edit

Protracted dicdef. --Smack (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see no reason to delete the topic as a whole, which deserves a substantive treatment in more than a dictionary format. That doesn't say that it can't be improved. Then again, what article can't? NB. What Links to Form
PS. According to the Guide to Deletion, I do not think that Smack should have moved content to Form (philosophy) without prior discussion, and without preserving history and talk pages. Is this correct? It seems like a better way to proceed would have been to discuss the proposed reorganization first. Jon Awbrey 05:44, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 20:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SGOP

edit

nn forum, we need a speedy criteria for clearly failing WP:WEB Werdna648T/C\@ 05:24, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was No consensus to delete. Keep --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Weaver

edit

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. SycthosTalk 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The president of a diploma mill, posted by a student there.

  • Speedy keep. Editor has nominated 8 Christian biography entries for deletion, today. It's hard to assume good faith. Neal Weaver is the president of Louisiana Baptist University. Obviously, keep. --Jason Gastrich 05:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing obvious is that you would want to keep it. --Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.5 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 January 2006
    Watch Out Potential branchstacking : [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45].Blnguyen 02:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And author has created dozens of articles on complete nonentities, largely connected to this diploma mill. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 23:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, are AfDs to be top-secret now or something? This one doesn't seem worth throwing in my vote, but I don't see a problem with telling people of an ongoing vote. Rogue 9 10:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Editor's number of deletion nominations is not an indicator of bad faith simply because it bothers another editor. Weaver is the President of a college with a Wiki entry--not unreasonable to keep, but alleged acts that might make him notable as a group are unverified and claimed without citation. Vote changed. - WarriorScribe 05:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment question being whether merely being the president of a college warrants a separate article.Mark K. Bilbo 19:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right...I was a tad hasty in writing the comment and left off some stuff. Assuming that the information in the article is correct, I think that it's possible that Weaver is trying to turn LBU into a more reputable institution. His policies probably had a hand in student growth. Mind you, personally, I still think it's a diploma mill, but less because they sell diplomas and more because they don't really educate anyone. If he had as much to do with the rewriting of the minimum educational standards for Ohio Christian schools, that might qualify, along with his presiding over a pretty significant growth of the Gospel Music Network. All of those things together might be reasonably notable, if true. It's just occurred to me, however, that if someone wrote those kinds of things about someone Gastrich didn't like, he'd demand a "citation." We've seen that enough times. If Gastrich doesn't like or doesn't agree with the comments or information, he demands citations, yet posts most of his claims about his personal heroes without providing much in the way of proof. There are no citations for any of the claims about Weaver. I'm convinced. Dump it. - WarriorScribe 02:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. hius qualifications are from a diploma mill. self-styled religious leader.Blnguyen 06:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. A list of publications would be a big improvement. Logophile 07:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. President of the LBU is perhaps a measure of notability for some, though I personally disagree that being at the head of a notable organisation makes one notable oneself. Very little proof that any of the article's other claims are true or notable, unsurprising given his credentials. --Malthusian (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How do you know that he is a published author? The piece doesn't list any works by him, and I can't find any outside sources listing any, either. He's not listed in the catalog of the Library of Congress, and the only two books by a "Neal Weaver" listed on Amazon both seem unlikely. One is a dissertation on university presidents in Oklahoma written in 2005[46], and the other is a small press biography of an orchestral conductor in Texas [47]. -Colin Kimbrell 19:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_(second_nomination) "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_(second_nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Itake 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There;s nothing wrong with calling people who want to delete this as having "bad faith"? Please that's pressuring a certain preception to the reader who clicks on the link. BTW I just check the last 8 posts you made all to keep the links in the email above... Arbustoo 02:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To whom are you referring? Jim62sch 02:14, 21 January 2006 (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 of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Baker

edit

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure pastor and college president. The church and college have the same name -- is the college even accredited?

Do you have any evidence that the university where he is president is a diploma mill? I saw pictures of their campus and students. There are degree requirements unlike diploma mills. By the way, you said Mike Randall was the president of a diploma mill and he's actually the president of a regionally accredited university. Therefore, your claims need evidence because you've been wrong once, today. Not every university that you haven't heard or every university that is Christian is a diploma mill. --Jason Gastrich 22:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Potential branchstacking Comment More vote-stacking: [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. Blnguyen 02:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All I do is encourage people to come and vote. If they do or don't and how they vote is up to them. --Jason Gastrich 05:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The DoEd does not list Faith Way Baptist College as a nationally accredited institution. -Colin Kimbrell 22:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: His university is in Canada. Could this be why? --Jason Gastrich 05:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Possibly; I'm not sure exaclty how Canada handles accreditation. There's also a "Faith Way Baptist College" in Michigan, and that's the one I thought the article was talking about. -Colin Kimbrell 14:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done a little digging. FWBCC has a website, but it's just an empty front page with a group photo of the '05/'06 student body.[55] There are 78 people in the photo (some of which may be teachers rather than students), which would make this a very small school. According to this page, which can be accessed through an open directory on that page, the college was founded in 1983 and is "an inseparable part of FaithWay Baptist Church in Ajax, Ontario". Their undergrad application is here (PDF), and their grad application is here (also PDF). For the undergrad app, it doesn't look like they require a diploma or GED. As for credentials, this page on the site of the "Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials" states that they are a "Private Non-Profit Institution Recognized under a Private Act" (specifically, the "FaithWay Baptist College of Canada Act, 1992"). The definition for this is on the right-hand side of the page, and it implies that they are not accredited in the way we have been using the term, which would require categorization as either a "Recognized Institution" or a "Postsecondary Institution Authorized to Offer Specific Credentials". Basically, from what I can tell, they're the religious equivalent of a vocational academy, run within within Greg Baker's church. -Colin Kimbrell 15:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a false accusation. I'd like a retraction and apology. --Jason Gastrich 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should unaccredited institutions be treated differently than other universities? Wikipedia has 60 lists of people from a variety of universities. I think they should be treated equally. --Jason Gastrich 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They should be treated differently because they aren't the same as real universities. If I wanted to start an unaccredited university tomorrow, all I'd need is a magic marker and a stack of diplomas.-Colin Kimbrell 14:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not to imply that some small number of unaccredited universities may not provide a valuable and useful education, but their lack of accreditation inherently prevents observers from telling the moderately useful ones from the scammers. -Colin Kimbrell
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 of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dorim Kim

edit

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. SycthosTalk 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable person.

I agree with you. --Jason Gastrich 21:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Said the man who has been soliciting keep votes - but of course, it's not "ballot stuffing" is it? For the record, Brokenfrog, I have read the article and find his claims tenuous. This is a private for-profit technical training school of unknown enrollment numbers, the university of which he is supposedly a board member appears not to exist, his Ed. D comes from an unaccredited university (and is reportedly honorary anyway) - the whole thing stinks of rotting fish. Add to that the evidence of vote-packing by the article's creator and sole editor and the fact that the same person created a whole bunch of articles in a short period on people who had all managed to escape the world's notice despite the vigortous claims to notability now expressed, all of whom are associated with a single unaccredited university - now that calls into question good faith. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although some is written in Korean, his awards are written in English [56]. --Jason Gastrich 21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't do it for me, attribution-wise. Looking beyond the obvious bias problem with using an individual's personal website as a gague for verifiability, the list doesn't even say which specific awards he's won. For all we know, they could be bowling trophies. -Colin Kimbrell 22:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a university. It doesn't even claim to be one. ACMT accreditation details: Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology, Occupational Education (NDCS) - Private nondegree-granting institutions that are predominately organized to educate students for trade, occupational, or technical careers - in other words, it's an occupational training school which trains NMR techs (something whihc is done on the job over here). These are two-year non-degree courses, and there is no indication of numbers. It is fair to be sceptical of an instution whose principal claims an Ed. D which turns out to come from an unaccredited university - and which is, in any case, reportedly honorary. The Seoul University of Theology and Seminary has, thus far, managed to escape the attentions of Google, a feat for which I commend is, as it must aid the necessary peace and tranquility of the place. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The federal accreditation listing says that it has 436 students, or around 200 in a typical graduating class. It's not a four-year degree program, but it does have admissions standards: a requirement for a high school diploma or GED for all programs, and additional certification or outside course credit requirements for specific programs (such as R.N. certification or 30 semesters' worth of college-level credits in natural sciences).[57] Also, US Rep Maxine Waters accused them of deceptive business practices in sworn testimony in 2005.[58] Given that last bit, I'm unsure how I feel, and am changing my vote to Neutral.-Colin Kimbrell 00:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This personal attack is unwarranted. Furthermore, Louisiana Baptist University isn't a diploma mill, they gave him an honorary degree (one of his many degrees), and he his notable for a variety of things (e.g. being president of a university, his awards, etc.). --Jason Gastrich 07:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Watching Gastrich complain about personal attacks is always problematic, but then, one would be hard-pressed to find a more flagrant hypocrite than Jason Gastrich. Someone as notable as Steve Levicoff (whose comments Gastrich tried so very hard to ignore) declared LBU to be a diploma mill twice in Usenet and once in a published book. Gastrich may whimper and whine about that, because he's sunk so much of his emotional capital into the school, but that's his problem. - WarriorScribe 08:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure. Levicoff admits he hasn't looked at the school in 11 years.[59] Now there's a good source. JK.--Jason Gastrich 08:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the badinage for a moment, how many people do you know who run bona-fide educational instiututions whose major credentials are honorary degrees? He claims on the websote to have a doctorate in education, but doesn't actually go as far as mentioning that it's an honorary doctorate (let alone one from an unaccredited institution). Doesn't that raise some questions in your mind? That was rhetorical, by the way. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 15:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion about the validity of the educational institution in question on another page. You're an admin, learn to be one and stick to that discussion instead of making pointless insinuations here. Itake 16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is probably not very notable, but the article can still be of use if kept NPOV. For me, limited notability doesn't not automatically warrant deletion. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just because this is beginning to look like a vendetta more than an attempt at cleaning the Wiki. Rogue 9 10:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Rogue 9. --StuffOfInterest 12:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Why does everyone seem to be picking on the "intellectual" articles? The man seems quite important and has won awards. There seems to be feud going on here about which I am not aware, and I reckon some people are looking to have it deleted solely because of that. - 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini lobster telephone
Comment:What award has he won? You don't know? Neither does anybody else. -Colin Kimbrell 14:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep And expand aswell. The article is abit small, but the man in question is noteworthy. What have you deletionist ever amounted to? Headed any instutions, won any awards? Didn't think so.Itake 14:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NPA -Colin Kimbrell 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Award from Korea's Prime Minister (1978)

Award from Korea's Commercial Minister (1977) Award from Seoul, South Korea's Mayor (1976)" <- These awards perhaps? Did you even READ the article before you jumped on the delete bandwagon? Itake 15:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations requested, not provided. Yes I did. Unnamed awards without citations? I got dozens of them :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 15:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"http://www.dorimkim.com/cgi_bin/main.cgi?board=about". Obviously you did not. Try and some research before you post. Itake 15:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources. The information on Mr. Kim's website is so vague as to be unusable, and there are no independent online sources for the information. If you have another citation to offer, please provide it; otherwise, we have no choice but to continue to treat this information as unverifiable. -Colin Kimbrell 16:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove it wrong? No. Thousands of wikipedia articles are built using info primarily for personal sites. I don't see you rushing to delete them. Again, I suspect this is purely POV against christianity on your part. The site is a good enough source. Itake 16:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm generally inclined to cut some slack on unverified information, as it's often verifiable but unsourced due to laziness on the part of the writer. The mention in this article, however, doesn't even include the name of the award being awarded. Without any context whatsoever, the information is of no value. As for the POV allegation, you're welcome to think what you want, but a POV-pusher who votes Neutral about deleting the article he's supposedly persecuting isn't doing a very effective job of pushing his POV, is he? -Colin Kimbrell 16:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, in reference to your "Can you prove it wrong?" challenge, you may want to (re)read WP:V#When_adding_information. The very first sentence of that policy states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit.".-Colin Kimbrell 16:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and he gave evidence with the first edit. If you don't LIKE that evidence, then thats too bad. If you are accusing the dude who made that page of being a liar, you need to prove that he is infact a liar. Otherwise I have no reason to listen to your rants anymore then his. Itake 16:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The evidence cited does not qualify as sufficient evidence under Wikipedia policy, as clearly stated in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources. -Colin Kimbrell 16:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does qualify as sufficient evidence. The website is the primary source of information for article. Itake 16:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. --Malthusian (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can you please cite an example of a WP policy or guideline supporting your claim? The example I cited states that when using information from a personal website, it is necessary to "...proceed with great caution and...avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial..." Mr. Kim's personal website is the sole source, and the information it purports to verify is plainly controversial, as evinced by this AFD. -Colin Kimbrell 16:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your WP policy link is sufficient enough. The page is controversial because the guy who put these pages up for deletion doesn't like the school. Not because the page lacks information. Now we've got two sources, his personal page and another page. We've even got pictures. There's enough proof, if you want this deleted you better start trying to prove that all this information is indeed false. Itake 18:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Untrue. Another source for this information is the ACMT's site. There is probably more information in the Korean-speaking world, although I don't know the language. - 17:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini lobster telephone
Comment:The ACMT site doesn't qualify as an independent source, since the ACMT site is also owned and operate by Mr. Kim. We need something like an official government list of honorees, or a newspaper article covering the ceremony. -Colin Kimbrell 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greatgavini and Itake are you this trusting of source material for all the articles you edit? Or is it just the Christian ones? You accuse those of us that think these are poor sources of POV and yet you seem blind to the fact that many of the claims in the article are not easily verifiable according to wikipedia research standards. The rationale that other articles in wikipedia use similar poor standards of verification is not valid since in those cases they too should not use such sources. David D. (Talk) 19:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it does strenghten the POV claim because I don't see you crawling all over those articles. While the articles related to this school all got up for deletion a few moments after they were created. Again, alot of evidence proving that this article is right has been presented yet you can't amount to anything but unvalidated claims that all these sites must be lying. Itake 19:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the article is lying. I am saying it is written from a POV perspective and is as yet, not verifiable. Plus he seems relatively unnotable from a religious perspective. These are viable reason to delete. You may disagree, thats fine, and thats why we have AfD. Also it is true i was not crawling all over the artcile, who was? Is that a reason i cannot vote in AfD? I was however involved in the discussion on the LBU page that spawned all these unnotable alumni pages. At the LBU talk page there is a circular argument being presented that justifies the inclusion of people as notable alumni based on the fact they have a page in wikipedia. Yet that page was created by the very person making the argument. This is bad faith editing and these article deserve to be judged by the community. Personally i find them remarkably unnotable. David D. (Talk) 19:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you look at my contribution history, you'll see that when the verifiability of a fact is questioned, I take steps to verify it. If it's verifiable (as with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BEML, to cite one example), I add the citations and confirm it. If it's not (as with this article), I note that fact as well. You seem to be remarkably quick to assume bad faith on the part of people who disagree with you. -Colin Kimbrell 19:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then NPOV tag it Daycd. And if you want to continue this discussion, come up with a good reason for deletion. "Unnotable" is not a valid argument when we are talking about a guy who has recevied awards from the major of seoul. I'm quick to assume bad faith in a situation like this, where people want articles deleted for no good reason at all. Itake 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But my argument was "notability is not verifiable". And that is still the case. David D. (Talk) 20:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it is verified. The sites verified it, and the primary source was a personal site. It was backed up with other sites, including pictures. Itake 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The pictures are from the same personal site, so they don't count as an extra reference. They're also suspect because we haven't yet been able to determine exactly what's going on in the photos (since the descriptions are in a foreign language no-one here can read). -Colin Kimbrell 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a valid argument if the awards in question do not meet the encyclopedia's standards for verifiability. His position as the head of ACMT is a much stronger branch to hang a case on, if you're inclined to keep, since it's easily verified and documented.-Colin Kimbrell 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With the ACMT, no its not a valid argument. And is pictures not enough to verify those claims. What exactly are the standards? Itake 20:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The pictures might or might not help. I've got a request for translation of the captions up on the RFT page, and I dropped a note on the talk page of User:Yonghokim, who voted in this AFD and self-identifies as a native speaker of Korean. If the caption lists which award is being given, that'd be a starting point toward finding a citable print source. If they say something like "receiving award from mayor" and we can identify the mayor from an outside photo, I'd probably also count that as partial confirmation. As they are right now, they're just pictures of a guy handing a folder to another guy. We'll have to wait and see.-Colin Kimbrell 20:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was right, and you were wrong. Are we going to see a vote change? Itake 14:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not until I can track down which award it is, and why/how often it's given. Knowing that it's from the Ministry of Trade and Industry is a good start, though.-Colin Kimbrell 02:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With a weak keep. I don't know enough about this guy to say one way or the other whether or not he's notable in his own field. But given that the article is truthful, no reason to delete.Wynler 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If anyone in this thread can read Korean, can you please translate the following phrases?: "상공장관 표창" and "서울시장표창장수여식". Those are picture captions to several photos in his web site, which might be Mr. Kim receiving awards.[60] Google's translation service lists them as "Skies minister ticket window" and "Seoul market ticket window market presentation ceremony", respectively, and as a wild guess I think something's getting lost in machine translation. There's also a picture of him receiving a "UN Award", but the res isn't high enough to read the lettering on the certificate.-Colin Kimbrell 18:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    상공 장관 표창 = Medal of Honor, awarded by the Ministry of Trade and Industry
    서울 시장 표창장 수여식 = Ceremony Awarding Medal of Honor, awarded by the Mayor of Seoul
    표창, which I translated as Medal of Honor, is up to challenge. It's just a korean BS way of saying "award, one of those special ones, not those crappy ones".
    --Yonghokim 06:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Unfortunately, the awards that might make him notable are Korean, and the external link that might explain them is in Korean. But IMO foreign language links and references do count as verifiability. I note that there is no version of this article in Korean Wikipedia, or at least no interwiki link to it if there is (it's hard to tell for non-roman-alphabet languages). My suggestion is for someone who speaks Korean to provide one, and then assuming that this article stayed on Korean Wikipedia for a few weeks without deletion, I would change my vote to an unqualified keep. While this is happening, IMO we should keep the article, with a tag questioning the subject's notability, and discuss it on its talk page. Andrewa 23:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATTENTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_(second_nomination) "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_(second_nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Itake 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Insinuating" ... this guy is shopping for votes calling those who want to delete the pages as people with "bad faith." Using Christ as a tool to get votes. Targeting those of religion with religion for keep votes. He's trying to influence the vote with his POV. Arbustoo 04:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So who recevied the money then? Noone, its a call to participate in this discussion and given the amount of people coming here ranting about their POV against this article, it was only fair that he gave the christian community a notice. Itake 14:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough --Vizcarra 01:51, 21 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. They signed a record deal, but Boyfriend Records isn't a notable label. howcheng {chat} 20:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitivity boosters

edit

Band which probably fails WP:MUSIC. 500 Google hits, lots of "similar artists" and an alleged "genre" called "Emo hip-hop." Not sure what this is, so I submit to a larger audience. FCYTravis 05:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They've done US tours, I've seen them live. It's legit stuff. Chad F. [email protected]. (Sorry, I'm not too good with all this code stuff.)

I've seen them live on numerous occasions as well. Always a fun time! The last show I saw was probably last March during their Suicide Pact tour. My favorite show of theirs was definitely the one at Mockingbird Station in Dallas a few years ago. Alicia C.

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 of the debate was no consensus. Ichiro (会話| |投稿記録|メール) 01:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Moseley

edit

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 01:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't understand how you say "Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me" with a straight face. You don't even deny soliciting inclusionists to this page. David D. (Talk) 01:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand because you are one of them and on their side. Posting all of this nonsense on the top of the voting page is inappropriate and it has skewed the voting. This is shameful behavior. --Jason Gastrich 01:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of them? I voted based on the fact it is a POV (or you did poor research) entry and non-notable. No other criteria were considered. You broke the spirit of the rules and when that happens it should be pointed out. You appear to be still denying that what you did was wrong despite an RfC? I notice you are already trying to appeal to a higher authority. That seems to fit the normal pattern. Good luck, I suspect you will find little sympathy. David D. (Talk) 02:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your rebuttal is very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. SycthosTalk 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everybody who get published and has some kind of ministry is notable. This one isn't.

He has degrees from various institutions. Which one do you call a diploma mill? --Jason Gastrich 22:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove this? This is a large accusation, so I hope you have some proof. --Jason Gastrich 22:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If his credentials are from a diploma mill, then by definition he didn't earn credentials, he bought them. Is simple logic that big a problem for you? --Calton | Talk 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and doesn't even read at Oxford. Reads at Oxford_Graduate_School which is based in Tennessee. Hm. Mark K. Bilbo 19:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it says he reads academic papers 'at' Oxford University, with a wikilink to that university. Doesn't seem to be any confusion. --Malthusian (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
very quick search brings up multiple sites recommending this main title. Admitedly largely within the Messianic community but that means is is significant to them, surely that makes it notable as a text for understanding the movement. These edit wars over matters that some seem not to know anything about is beginning to get me down. Or do you all really know a lot on this particular subject area. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, multiple sites (as in more than one!) recommend this guy! All the people voting to delete must be crazy; obviously, having one's work recommended on more than one site is sufficient for inclusion in wikipedia.
Seriously, if you want to make a case for keeping, you have to show this person satisfies WP:BIO. --Pierremenard 23:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing more than encouraging Wikipedians to vote. --Jason Gastrich 02:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's spamming to skew a vote. Skewing votes is by definition an act of bad faith. This needs to stop. FeloniousMonk 03:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing wrong with letting people know a vote is going on. Rogue 9 10:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But at least you're not a Baptist seeing this stuff. A.J.A. 05:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't vote twice.the1physicist 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[T]/[C]   AfD? 23:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep(strong) I tend to think that pretty much everyone who is published is notable. If you think this guy is a quack, and have the citation for it, include it in his page so that people can read it when they look him up. Anyway, article could use some citations and cleanup, but clean it up, don't delete it. This is a 2 day old article. Give it a week or two to get straightened out, don't kill it! Brokenfrog 20:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You got two books with 5,000 circulation? If so, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll write you up. -Colin Kimbrell 00:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please support your assertion that "no one reads them". At best 'emotive language' surely. His main title is offered in so many different places that it a little strange if it is bought and read by no one. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 12:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to support my assertion, nor is it possible to do so, it being a negative. The burden of proof is on the writers of the article to show that this person is notable. Your claim that if you publish your book in enough places, someone will read it, strikes me very shaky when we consider that to be an encyclopaedia everything must be verified. --Malthusian (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple published works. The "diploma mill" acuser needs to put up or shut up with evidence to make any case for deletion. --StuffOfInterest 12:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 15:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone can publish 'works'. So far there is little evidence his works meeting the criteria in WP:BIO. As for diploma mill, the article admits that he has 'qualifications' from the infamous LBU and Oxford Graduate School, both unaccredited, and several other so-called universities we don't have articles on. Then you have the lame attempts to link him with Princeton and Oxford University by bad wikilinking. And finally we have the, ah, close association of this article with other diploma mill graduates, one in particular. The diploma mill accusations are very well founded. --Malthusian (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The guy's the founder of an institute. There's also an appropiate image. If he reads at Oxford, and he's been working at this thing for over twenty years, then it's definitely worth something. Informative, not a stub. Keep. - 13:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini lobster telephone
  • Strong Keep This is a perfectly viable encyclopedia article on a public figure that could very well be the subject of someone's research in the future. In such an event, wikipedia would come in handy. That is what wikipedia is for. I haven't heard a single good argument to why this should be deleted. Seriously, the next article I see where someone has mentioned the word "diplomamill" I'm going to go mad...Itake 15:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really think diploma mills are notable enough for an encylopedia? Or do you just want to include everything regardless of quality? Being published is not the same as publishing quality. In my mind quantity should not overide quality. Are you in favor of abolishing notability? If so then no one can make an good argument of which you would approve. David D. (Talk) 18:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that the school is a diplomamill? Nowhere. Exactly. Now go away. Itake 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So Christian. Obviously this is a person not a school. It was you that mentioned diploma mill, above. I see that you can only address the question with an obnoxious retort. I'm convinced. David D. (Talk) 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So Retarded. I'm talking about the school, I'm guessing a person alone can't be a diplomamill. I did not bring up the diplomamill, I replied to earlier mentions of the word. Do read the discussion before you involve yourself in it. Itake 18:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More insults and you still have not addressed the original question. Of course it does not say it is a diploma mill it is written from a POV. Is that not obvious? Liberal references to Oxford University and Princton but no documentation of his presence in either place. Let's see, degrees from unaccredited insitutions and then off to Oxford and Princeton. Do you see how far fetched this is? It may be true but i am not going to accept that on face value. Do you always accept undocumented evidence this easily in other articles you edit? As far as LBU and diploma mill there is a pretty good link. See the talk page and the article for yourself. David D. (Talk) 19:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any unreferenced or otherwise unverified material should be stricken from the article, as per our official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More talk and you still don't have a point! The LBU article does not say its a diplomamill, so its not a diplomamill. Any allegations about diplomamilling is listed right there, but its not a verified diplomamill. Even if it WAS a diplomamill, its still noteworthy. This entire encyclopedia is built on websites. Very few articles have references available in bookform or such, most build their references on website. Usually, I don't run into POV people like yourself so Usually I don't have that problem. Itake 19:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What have i said that is POV? That i think LBU is a diploma mill? Have you even looked at how the places operates? It gives credits for "life experience", did you miss that? It is unaccredited, did you miss that? This is evidence that substantiates my case. Yet you are fine with unsubstantiated claims that Moseley was working at Oxford and Princeton. Interesting. David D. (Talk) 19:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The diplomamill thingy, again, is not verified. This article is not about the LBU, not about a diplomamill and not about my religion. That you continously refer to the LBU as a diplomamill shows your obvious POV bias and that you cannot present a credible evidence for the deletion of THIS article. Instead you have to rely on ongoing disputes in other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itake (talk • contribs)
I have made my case for this article to be deleted. You get frustrated by diploma mills being discussed but obviously that is part of a valid case against this entry. He has no quality qualifications and the author has resorted to assertions about alledged studies in notable universities that are not verfiable. Take all that out and there is not much left. This is not about knee jerk POV, it is about having quality articles about relevent people. Its just that your threshold is lower than mine. Wikipedia allows for such differences in opinion. David D. (Talk) 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, its just that I base my opinions on something else then pure POV bias and diplomamill theories. Itake 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Horses for courses. David D. (Talk) 20:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_(second_nomination) "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_(second_nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Itake 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Insinuating" ... this guy is shopping for votes calling those who want to delete the pages as people with "bad faith." Using Christ as a tool to get votes. Targeting those of religion with religion for keep votes. Arbustoo 03:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable as an author. --Vizcarra 02:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arbustoo 03:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems non-notable to me. The canvassing for keep votes is also very worrying and not in the spirit of Wikipedia in my view. --Spondoolicks 19:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he's writen stuff then he should at least have a little slice of wikipedia? I mean, Wikipedia is huge, everyone can have a share can't they? Everyone thinks that because he isn't in the news, that he shouldn't be included in wikipedia, the so called "sum of all human knowledge". But how do we know he isn't influencial? He effects hundreds with his words..... Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]
    • The hypocrisy is amazing. In one sentence you frame this debate as being between "Christians & others" and then in the very next sentence you say, "this should not be about religion". It's not about religion! It's about maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia! We have WP:BIO for a reason. By framing this as a debate between Christians and others "seemingly" attacking Christians by (*gasp*) voting to delete articles of non-notable Christian figures, you are doing a disservice to the AfD process. --Cyde Weys 23:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For F$#% sake!!!!!!! Have you actually read what I've written before spouting off that big mouth like everyone else whose's replied to my comments!!!???? NO!!! What I'm saying is is that everyone's taking it as a "Christian VS Other" debate! But it's not! What I'm saying is that if people keep on making it about religion, it will create a drift between the two parties, even if it is about religion. Read before you get all smarmy..... Spawn Man 02:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The individual clearly exists. Kurt Weber 15:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability test - an ACTUAL standard for encyclopedic merit, as opposed to the "mistaking the map for the territory" objectivist standard. --Calton | Talk 06:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everything above. Ashibaka tock 18:52, 23 January 2006 (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 of the debate was no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. STANDARD SPIEL: NO CONSENSUS NOW DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE FORMATION OF CONSENSUS IN THE FUTURE. ANY DECISION TO MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER SHOULD BE MADE BASED ON DISCUSSION ON THE TALK, NOT ON THIS AFD. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD'S RESULT IN FAVOUR OF KEEPING THE ARTICLE AS IS OR REDIRECTING IT IN THE EVENT OF A REVERT WAR. Johnleemk | Talk 11:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Randall

edit

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 00:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. SycthosTalk 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The school he's president of might be notable, but he isn't. Delete. A.J.A. 05:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. - WarriorScribe 06:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. his qualifications are from a diploma mill. self-styled religious leader.Blnguyen 06:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some sort of purging of certain religious figures going on, and it is becoming difficult to stick to the assumption of good faith. This one is an Easy Keep, via Wikipedia:Notability. "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." This subject meets the qualification with two of the publications he edited/wrote for.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaysuschris (talk • contribs) .
  • There's no reason to doubt good faith if the complete information is not in the article and a deletion nomination is made based on what is there, as well as the record of the article writer for posting a number of articles about people of questionable notability. If there is information available that makes the person notable according to WP:BIO, perhaps passing on laziness (or an attempt to inflate contribution numbers by posting many small, largely substanceless articles instead of a few, good, informative articles) might better serve the purpose of Wikipedia. What do you think? - WarriorScribe 07:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first priority is not to delete articles that don't seem up to snuff, but to make them better. Perhaps the accusation of laziness applies somewhere in this mess. Four seconds on google gets you the circulation numbers for the publications the subject edited. That's all it takes to know this is a keep. Not to mention his position at his institution. - Jaysus Chris 07:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see your point, but I think that deleting articles that are not up to snuff should be some level of priority, if not the first. I would add that it's not up to the reader to do the research to see if the party or institution is notable--something in the article should indicate that, even if it's a short article that the writer intends to come back to, later. For example, I intend to start adding articles on some writers of history and some scientists that I think should get some coverage, but if I were to do that and only add as a "stub," I think I'd make it a point to get the notability in there--something other than "is a professor and author." Neither of those things is good enough and it would serve me right if someone came along an deleted it because it contained insufficient information. We all have time issues and we can all understand that one might want to start an article and add to it, later. That's cool. Get whatever makes that person or institution notable in there, first. Then, if you have to come back to it later (maybe even much later), it'll probably still be there, even if still a "stub." Sorry...I have no sympathy for lazy writers. I'm a tad "old school" that way. - WarriorScribe 07:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that the reader shouldn't have to hunt for notability. But when, through the magic of Wikipedia, we become the editors, we have an obligation to make sure we're not deleting useful information. I guess that's what this process is all about, but I think the default position should be "let's see if this is appropriate" versus "AFD anything I'm not familiar with that doesn't make a bold claim for notability". My opinion. - Jaysus Chris 08:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there's a difference, too--a fine one, I'll grant--between what some might view as "notable" (Wiki's standards are a tad over-encompassing, after all) and what is "useful." These kinds of articles are not generally useful. They read like bios from corporate literature, and too often don't qualify as encyclopedic. However, I certainly think that your opinion is well-considered and valid, even if I'm not convinced that anyone is really taking the latter "default position." - WarriorScribe 12:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some think that deleting articles risks losing valuable information, just because that valuable information or proof of notability isn't there yet. It doesn't. The article can be recreated with those things without being speedily deleted, and articles have been recreated in this way. See Godcasting - it was initially (rightly) deleted, then eventually recreated with the necessary information it lacked the first time, reAfDed and kept. Admittedly there was a lot of unnecessary drama on the way and I could probably pick a better example, but then it was a Christian-related subject, so so much for the evil atheistic cabal. --Malthusian (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
President of a diploma mill? It is these sorts of ignorant accusations that make me upset. He's the president of a regionally accredited university. If you would have bothered to look at Baptist_Bible_College_-_Springfield,_Missouri, you would have known this. Will you consider changing your vote, now? --Jason Gastrich 21:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning and the Louisiana Baptist University. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 23:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A guy who is the head of a university, but has no proper degrees from a proper university, would suggest that the "university" he leads is some tin-pot crackpot self-declared intellectual hotbed. Has this guy ever published any of his work in a respected research journal?? Blnguyen 23:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Published by whom? Read by whom? Nothing's stopping YOU from making it better and relevant.
  • Strong Keep university-related topics are notable. Cynical 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Edits two magazines with circulation > 5,000 and thus satisfies WP:BIO. The LBU stuff doesn't reflect well on him as a person, but doesn't really matter one way or the other for bio standards. -Colin Kimbrell 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I read the article very carefully and did not see a single reference to anything notable that he did. He went to this school and that (I went to schools too), he's had this job and that (I've had jobs too)...but no mention of anything he did that made some kind of difference, or gained him noteriety. So he's the president of an unaccredited institution...what did he do that makes him interesting to the public at large? bcatt 22:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Edits two magazines with circulation greater than 5,000, which certainly seems to satisfy the spirit of WP:BIO. -Colin Kimbrell 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is I said before, he's the president of a regionally accredited university;[75] which is the highest accreditation that the government can provide in the United States. Will this make you change your vote? --Jason Gastrich 02:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What argument is that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_(second_nomination) "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_(second_nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Where do you get the facts to backup the claim that User Jason Gastrich used multiple accounts to further his articles? Now this is going out hand. When you people turn to personal attacks and blatant lies and slandering, it gets personal. Itake 01:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gastrich is saying those who want to delete the articles have "bad faith." If that's not pressuring for ballot stuffing nothing is. No insinuation. Facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Jason_Gastrich Arbustoo 03:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you'll get used to it. Opposing any opinion of Gastrich is "bad faith," "harrassment," "persecution of Christians" and, anyway, you do it because you're an atheist who "hates Jesus." Why, I'm downright scum. It's a cross I bear. Mark K. Bilbo 03:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never called you scum. If I did though, it would be only a fraction of the negative things you commonly say to Christians. As you know very well, I've never cursed you, but I've summarized the things you've said, with cited quotations, for your Wikipedia entry;(see Talk:Mark K. Bilbo#Controversy) only to have a couple of your friends delete them. For those who wish to see the truth about Mark Bilbo, I've compiled 11 or 12 links to his statements on Usenet where he swears at Christians, calls them names, and mocks Jesus and God. So, as I was saying, I don't judge you and I don't call you names. However, you frequently open your mouth and do reputable atheists a disservice by the things that come out of it. --Jason Gastrich 05:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough --Vizcarra 02:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Arbustoo 03:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep—notable per WP:BIO: chief editor of and regular contributor to magazines, one with a circulation of over 5000 copies and membership including some 3500 Baptist preachers, another one with a circulation of over 32,000 copies, reaching an estimated 100,000 people. The latter writes about him: "An interim editor, Mike Randall, was appointed and subsequently became permanent editor in May" (1995).... "He is well known for his business acumen, ministry and publishing experience and has earned the respect of a broad cross-section of the Fellowship.". This article cannot be voted away if Delete voters do not even try to explain why WP:BIO would not apply here. AvB ÷ talk 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Dear Advertiser: Thank you for your interest in the Baptist Bible Tribune... The Tribune circulation is over 32,000, reaching over 100,000 people". So they claim to have a circulation of over 32,000 - to a prospective advertiser no less. That does not meet WP:BIO, as they claim to have over 32,000 readers, but there is no third-party verification here. --Malthusian (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes - "Every foreign missionary of the Baptist Bible Fellowship International (currently almost 900) and all the students in our approved colleges receive a copy." So not only is it handed out free, but you don't even get a say in whether you get one or not. That means that 32,000 figure has to be taken with an even bigger grain of salt (several grains of salt?) We deleted Bath Impact, the Bath University fish wrapper, for this reason. --Malthusian

(talk) 20:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the figure is not correct, they are swindling their advertizers (at USD 1000 a page no less). Somehow I do not find the argument that we need third-party confirmation convincing. AvB ÷ talk 21:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not saying the figure is a lie. I'm saying that sending a free magazine to 32,000 people who are automatically signed up when they enter college is not the same as 32,000 people actually going to a newsagent and buying it. Advertising is an extremely painful market and everyone involved has finely-tuned bullshit detectors. When a free newspaper tells an advertiser they have 32,000 readers, they will automatically think in terms of how many people actually read it and don't just dump it straight in the bin. We need to do the same. --Malthusian (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there anywhere near 31,100 students enrolled in Baptist colleges? AvB ÷ talk 01:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable in my book. His contributions to the magazine mentioned by AvB are just reports on what's happening at his school rather than significant articles. Would we have an article on the guy who puts together the weather report of a national newspaper? By the way, I, like Stuffofinterest, would like to think that semi-notable atheist figures would be given the same respect... and deleted. --Spondoolicks 19:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this were so, that would leave The Baptist Preacher. Which means he is notable amongst Baptists which in MY book is sufficient qualification to warrant inclusion in WP. As far as I know this may well be one of the reasons for the very low cutoff point of 5,000 copies. However, The Baptist Bible Tribune is not online. How can you be sure that Randall only contributes "reports on what's happening at his school"? Oh, and if you can point me to an atheist's (or indeed anyone's) bio article being AfD'd while having met the 5,000 WP:BIO limit, I'll be happy to come over and vote and argue for that article to be kept. AvB ÷ talk 20:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Serious meatpuppetry in progress here. Stifle 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Article is about unnotable with promotion links to his websites/ministry. This is basically a spam article. Arbustoo 02:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain with preference to merge. Little known, but would be great if merged. Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]
  • Keep The individual clearly exists Kurt Weber 17:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, existing is not valid keep critereon.Gateman1997 08:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ought to be speedied as nn-bio, really. Ashibaka tock 18:55, 23 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Cook

edit
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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 20:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Jaderlund

edit

This Henry Jaderlund is included in the IMDB, but it does not seem that he has had any important roles. For a contemporary film actor, he gets very few Google hits. Minus Wikipedia and mirrors, I get 122 Google hits (56 unique hits) for "Henry Jaderlund".[76] Moreover, the claim that "Henry's father is from Germany and he belongs to The Hohenzollerns a European royal family" looks hoaxy. Jaderlund (actually Jäderlund) is a fairly common type of Swedish surname and lacks any noble or royal connotations whatsoever. I don't know if IMDB alone is acceptable as a source for a biography. All the other hits seem to be from online video-stores and that kind of thing, and are him being included in a couple of minor roles in casting lists. As far as I can tell, nobody seems to have interviewed him or shown any interest in him as an individual actor. Most semi-obscure pornstars seem to be better verified than this guy. Tupsharru 06:13, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 22:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bogomolov Jr.

edit

I don't know if being ranked the #202 player in the world, almost three years after a career high of being ranked #97, is really sufficient notability on its own without any listing of championships won or challenged for or some other reason it's important we should know who this guy is. Daniel Case 06:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was ... three years ago. He's now number 202. I admit tennis is not my forte but I can't see where the notability comes from. Daniel Case 06:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We really can't move people in and out because of what their current ranking happens to be. As far as I know, Björn Borg and John McEnroe have no current ranking whatsoever. Either he should be in because his career-high ranking qualifies him, or he should be deleted because it does not. I agree that he doesn't seem notable, but neither do most of the professional sportspeople who have articles, and with Wikipedia's general inclusionism when it comes to sport, I assume he will be kept. u p p l a n d 08:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CalJW. --Knucmo2 12:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to show what else he's done besides a brief visit to the top 100. Crunch 14:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think sports rankings alone can establish notability. People like Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe are notable because of their fame ... playing in televised tournaments, etc. As for this guy, yeah, he did just barely crack the Top 100, but if you look at all sports and all people who have ever cracked the top 100 rankings you could create literally tens of thousands of worthless nn-bio pages. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 16:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, no other indication of notability beyond formerly-97th-ranked, except being married to another tennis player who's also formerly-Top-100. I would be more inclined to vote Keep if Mr. B was shown to have won major-tour tournaments and earned headlines, not just the agate type of quarterfinalists. Google search shows an award demonstrating notability: USTA Circuit Player of the Week for sweeping the singles and doubles titles at a USTA Pro Circuit event in July '05. Weak keep. Barno 01:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per CalJW abakharev 01:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed my mind, even if consensus is going the other way. You must have me mixed up with someone else. Daniel Case 05:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Daniel. My mixup abakharev 06:03, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was keep. Note that User:Mondejoe (article's creator) removed the AfD notice on January 19. I would have relisted this nomination except it's a unanimous keep. howcheng {chat} 22:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dopod

edit

A company which has no indication of notability.Blnguyen 05:44, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 22:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contour Components

edit

Appears to be advertising. Blnguyen 06:33, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was redirect to interactive fiction. This is not an official result, and anyone who thinks they know better is invited to change the redirect or turn this into a disambig. Johnleemk | Talk 11:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Storytelling Game

edit

Here's a real kick in the pants: I just read through my downloaded PDF version of Fantasy Imperium, and right there on page 11 of the .pdf (page 1 of the Introduction) is the quote, "Fantasy Imperium is a Historical Fantasy Role Playing Game set in Medieval Europe."

Since the term "Interactive Storytelling Game" does not appear in the text of the game itself (though it is on the website), I nominate this article for deletion. The Bearded One 06:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Interactive storytelling which Pfafrich linked to is listed as a computer game stub. I am unfamiliar with any of the other examples which were added, but one of my concerns is that the current article on Interactive Storytelling Games utterly fails to distinguish itself from Role-playing games. If there is insufficient distinction, the ISG article should be deleted and turned into a redirect to the RPG article. The Bearded One 05:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
maybe a three way disambig to Interactive storytelling Storytelling game and Role-playing game, the terms is used in all three fields. At least three examples I've found Bag of Stories', Storysmith and Abantey don't fit in RPGs. --Salix alba (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 22:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irob0t

edit

I'll let the article itself make the case for its own deletion: "The webpage has not gained much popularity ...", "It has resurfaced recently, with Stanford using it to test out some of his web experiments." And it has no Alexa rating. Seems to be thumbing its nose at WP:WEB. Do some people like watching their articles get listed here? That's the only explanation I can find for this one. Daniel Case 06:58, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. Using the picture as "evidence" is a circular argument. You created both; one cannot be used as evidence of the other. howcheng {chat} 22:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scale of trust

edit

Even without the image, this term does not exist.-- Perfecto 07:22, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel_Imperato

edit
  • Keep. May not be notable, however, still a candidate.
  • Keep. notable. Who knows, this guy might end up being important after all --- 18:04, 18 January (UTC)

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:C0AFEd0LOOYJ:www.elpanorama.net/index.php?id=19 "daniel imperato"&hl=en 11:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • None of those articles is more than two months old. Doesn't notability entail some element of longevity? And all of them are foreign press with which I'm not familiar - is their attention a good measure of the subject's notability? Airumel 07:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. notable. Hey if so many people are commenting on this guy it must mean someone is interested --- 13:24, 19 January (UTC)
  • Comment. First of all, please vote only once. Also, as for the "some articles," they're interesting. First of all, they're almost all from countries with whom the US is at odds with. Second, one is a a letter to the editor and the others are all just publishing Imperator's press releases. I'm sure newspapers in these countries (Cuba, Iran, Panama) don't usually receive press releases from US presidential candidates. It's more a curiousity than anything else. I guess the question is, are we including articles for all of the literally thousands (yes, thousands) of declared US presidential candidates? Crunch 08:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--- 18:04, 18 January (UTC)

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 of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. And all this time I thought it was a program that simulated Reginald Fessenden under X Windows. JIP | Talk 19:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XFessenden

edit

Delete; nonsense, likely typo Lockley 07:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at the history of the article, I can safely say that I don't know what the hell is going on. It appears that Fessenden was moved to XFessenden, so that Fessenden could be redirected to Fessenden (disambiguation). Delete whatever the hell's here speedily as an empty article, as nobody's going to search for this, although it may require something complicated like a contributions merge back to Fessenden to comply with the GFDL (I think, I'm no legal professional). Does this make sense? -- Saberwyn - 08:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no content, no reason to put the 'X' in front of Fessenden -- Astrokey44|talk 10:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe a user thought he could rename a page to Fessenden which already existed by renaming that one first. Merge contribution history and delete XFessenden. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-18 11:24Z
  • Speedy delete as empty article. The only content in the history is an edit war over which article a redirection should point to plus the move. -- JLaTondre 12:52, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was NUKED FROM ORBIT, as per the precedent set by Third desk from the left in the second row from the back of Room 302, Bogstandard Junior School, Hamlet, Somerset. Also BJAODN'd. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:12, Jan. 18, 2006

Wilson School Buses

edit

School articles I can understand, but articles about a district's school buses? -- Bobdoe (Talk) 07:46, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was Speedily Userfied to creator User:Miriamrose89 per WP:BITE Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 14:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Barcus

edit

Delete; non-notable and blanked Lockley 07:51, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 22:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds of war

edit

Non-notable MUD.

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 of the debate was MERGE to List of countries with multiple capitals. -- Jonel | Speak 02:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-capital country

edit

Neologism. Unheard political science/geography term. No relevant result by Google. [77] __earth (Talk) 08:23, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. I swear I've seen an AfD nom for this article before, but I've tried a number of variations of the title and haven't been able to find it. howcheng {chat} 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOSO (Buy Or Sell Online)

edit

I found this one by exterminating link spam hidden in a non-displaying <div> within the article [78]. This is never a good sign. Also has an alexa ranking of 1,001,080, and no recognized sites linking to it. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:18, Jan. 18, 2006

  • Comment: the anonymous user who created the article also edited other articles to promote this one ([79], [80] [81]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:23, Jan. 18, 2006
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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 22:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IBtalk

edit

Non-notable website, created by the same anonymous user as "BOSO (Buy Or Sell Online)" above. No Alexa data at all. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:28, Jan. 18, 2006

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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 22:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazin marji

edit

WP:VAIN / non-notable businessman (only 17 Google hits). Tearlach 09:18, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Interpretext Language Solutions"

edit

Not notable. No Alexa data. Zero google hits when searched as a phrase. Ezeu 09:21, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 02:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit-tech

edit

Delete. Trivial article. Alexa rank ~15000. Taken from site itself, active forum users is 308 with most ever active as 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unts (talk • contribs)


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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Charter Change in the Philippines

edit
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 of the debate was REDIRECT to Kings of Chaos. - Jonel | Speak 03:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giveupalready

edit

Just another bulletin board - not notable Velela 09:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: moved incorrectly created nomination to this AFD page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-18 11:12Z


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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Nittoli

edit

Googled, didn't appear to be that well-known! suspect vanity Stephenb (Talk) 10:41, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Wells

edit

Googled, didn't appear to be as notable as claimed Stephenb (Talk) 10:45, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mosiac model

edit

Delete, poorly written, unsourced piece about alleged marginal pseudo-scientific theory, sounds highly fishy, possibly hoax. Neither of the two alleged proponents can be found on Google. "Fluid mosiac model" itself seems to be a legitimate concept in cell biology, but this alleged application to sex is completely unverifiable. Lukas 10:52, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Digitality

edit

NN "term first coined by cultural theorists Neville Langley and Chris Atherton", article by User:Chrisatherton. Beside the vanity issue, "3 of 4 hits" is not enough. Delete. Kusma (討論) 11:41, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Langley

edit

NN academic at some community college. Few google hits. Delete. Kusma (討論) 11:43, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Rhatlan

edit

This is a vanity article, created by the author, and with all substantive edits performed by him. No apparent notability. Hydriotaphia 11:58, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamshi's Imp

edit

Vanity article, created and solely edited by the author of the novel. Hydriotaphia 12:02, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amber in the Over World

edit

Clear vanity article, created and edited by the author of the novel. Hydriotaphia 12:04, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Afrikaans

edit

The book Genesis of the bible in Afrikaans. Copyright seems not GFDL compatible, so just delete instead of transwiki to wikisource. Kusma (討論) 12:05, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bellettini

edit

Italian surname dicdef, already transwikied. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-18 12:09Z

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marx Revolution

edit

I think it is a vanity page, I did a search on allmusic and found nothing, Google hits were hard to find. Nor do I think they meet any of WP:MUSIC guidelines Knucmo2 12:23, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: NO CONSENSUS NOW DOES NOT PRECLUDE CONSENSUS IN THE FUTURE. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD AS A REASON TO KEEP THE ARTICLE AS IS, REDIRECT IT, OR MERGE IT, IN ANY DEBATE OR EDIT WAR IN THE FUTURE. Johnleemk | Talk 11:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QUIKSCRIPT

edit

Non-notable? ComputerJoe 17:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drox

edit

Delete or possibly userfy. Private, fictional universe "created" by article author, not even published. Lukas 12:32, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 00:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad News, Bring Faith

edit

Delete nn christian rock band with no entry in AMG and 0 Google hits. Bruce1ee 12:35, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was REDIRECT to Wide Angle (PBS series). -- Jonel | Speak 03:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wide_Angle_(PBS)

edit

Delete - more complete page already exists Osbojos 12:29, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Šegmentation:

edit

Wrong name, and content copied from [82] (not clear if copyvio). Just delete instead of merging to be sure. Kusma (討論) 13:02, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villi Powers

edit

Delete, non-notable private fictional character, by the same guy who brought us Drox. Lukas 13:06, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was speedily deleted by another admin. Mindmatrix 20:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Journeys in America

edit

Fails to assert notability of the book. Seems to be advertising. Demiurge 13:06, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiskistan

edit

Utterly non-notable parody micronation mentioned on an utterly non-notable blog. Randwicked Alex B 13:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it misses WP:CSD - but not by a whole lot. It asserts the reason for its importance - just that reason is very disputable. I changed my vote to simple delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was speedily deleted by another admin. Mindmatrix 20:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business travelers

edit

Dicdef with spam. Delete. Kusma (討論) 13:27, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was speedily deleted by another admin. Mindmatrix 20:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate housing

edit

Dicdef with spam. Delete. Kusma (討論) 13:32, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thecoolestthingever

edit

Web forum, no evidence of passing WP:WEB, looks very much like vanispamcruftisement Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 13:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a total of 7568 posts in less than a month by 67 registered users. It is not a 'vanispamcruftisement' whatever you consider that to be.

Oh well, was worth a go. Soreenkid 15:21, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20th century fashion

edit

Reads as original research, tagged as speedy "already covered at corset" which is not a speedy criterion as far as I know. Bringing to AfD. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 13:51, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swbat

edit

Tagged for speedy as a dictdef (which it is) but that's not a WP:CSD criterion. Tempted to delete anyway under WP:SNOW but cowardice wins so bringing to AfD. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 14:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I suppose it's not a CSD, but just barely. If Wiktionary is interested in education industry jargon, it can have this. (The term is used in cookie-cutter education in public schools in the US. It is mass conformity in lesson plans.) Delete for dictdef. Geogre 14:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a dictionary definition that's not likely to be found in any dictionary. And it should be SWBAT anyways. - squibix 16:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary? Although frankly most people would come here looking for a defintion on what "SWBAT" means. It's not useless or made-up content. Would it be possible to redirect to Wiktionary? Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 16:44, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Assembly

edit

Tagged for speedy as "does every fan club deserve a wikipedia article?" (not a speedy criterion as such). Some notability asserted (says it's worldwide) so can't really tag as nn-group either, so I brought it to AfD. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 14:04, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was speedily deleted by another admin. Mindmatrix 20:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LUE spinoffs

edit

I have seen much of this before on previous AfDs, including the YTMND bit at the bottom. I say it should all be merged to LUE as none of these apears to have any independent notability, along with LUEshi which was kept by default after AfD. But I'd like more to back that action than just "I think it should be so". Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 14:13, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diana albers

edit

Tagged for speedy as nn-bio, but notability is asserted (if this was genuinely a cvomic-book letterer she may have been credited on thousands of comics). That might not actually be notable, but who am I to judge? Over to you... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 14:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is, of course, assuming that lettering hundreds of comis makes one notable. My bias towards comics may be showing through. Perhaps the assembly-line nature of such comics means this is less than notable? -- Dragonfiend 05:27, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stade Olympic Albertville

edit

Tagged for speedy (no criterion specified). Seems to be a factual error (see Talk page) - this is (a) the wrong name and (b) not where the stated events took place anyway! Tempted to speedy it, but don't want to end up at WP:DRV so cowardice wins and here it is. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 14:38, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

401k homepage and Online-Gaming-Profit-Share

edit

Non-notable websites. Advertising / vanity postings by Jmjoseph. -- RHaworth 14:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep it alive.

This kid has a site that is humorous. Who cares if hes advertising. Its funnier to watch things disgrace themselves than have others make it easy on him.

Somehow 5 of us found it and thought it was worthy to be posted upon. Wikipedia isnt the american encyclopedia. Thats what makes it what it is.

To be honest I know Alex and I searched his site in Yahoo. 9th hit was this post. He wont beat my bud's idea, but damn, at least let it try. I hope it fails miserably, not because some people want it to, but because it gets no hits.

So if youw ant this kids site to fail at least let it fail by itself. I bet he is getting more google rank by you people posting against it.

Anyhow,

Nice work Alex! Jake and Sammy are proud.



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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse (band)

edit

Article is about a band which seems non-notable: no Google hits for 'Eclipse' plus the names of the members. I do hesitate, though, because it may be that the information available is just not in English. Is there anyone familiar with Pakistan's metal scene who wants to weigh in here? - squibix 14:50, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syrnia

edit

Non-notable free browser game, less than 10 months old. The page makes no claim to notability, being simply a duplicate of the information on the game's pages. If the 17-year-old designer becomes famous or it expands to 40,000 players, a well-written article might be appropriate, but not yet. Habap 14:55, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurst v. Newman

edit

An ample illustration of why writing articles about current events goes wrong. This amounts to a minor skirmish in the war on science that religious fundamentalists are waging, and is now fizzling out.

It is being settled out of court. Basically, a schoolboard decided that they could show creationist videos to their schoolkids, consisting of some young earth creationist videos and some intelligent design creationist videos under the banner of "philosophy" to get round the whole Edwards v. Aguillard thing. Americans United noticed and sued, and now the schoolboard have settled out of court (the course is being stopped).

Since it did not go to court, it does not become any case law, and is no more notable than all the other anti-science endeavours such as legislation that is being pushed by those with certain interests. (see http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?year=2006 for those just this year).

The most remarkable thing, actually, has been the Discovery Institute's flip-flopping from crying "censorship!" to "we don't think you should be mixing our brand of creationism with another brand because we pretend harder that ours is science" and now, after it has been settled, they've flopped back to crying "censorship!".

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 of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberitis

edit

Neologism dictionary definition. Usually, it would go to Wiktionary, but in this case this word has had such a limited use (Google:Cyberitis) that I would rather delete the article completely. Ironically, the claim of notability made in the talk page is an article in LAWeekly that humoristically define "cyberitis" as the act of prefixing words with cyber- [84], which is quite different from the definition given in the article. - Liberatore(T) 15:10, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless facts human body

edit

Useless article. Trivia - not encyclopedic. -- RHaworth 15:20, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Evil

edit

Delete Not enough is known about this fictional "ancient evil" to justify a separate article; and when we do learn its name, we'd have to change the title of the article anyway. Drakhan 17:49, 17 January 2006 (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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Mytton

edit

Not notable. 16 year old "managing director" who write in a PHP magazine. Second nomination. r3m0t talk 21:01, 17 January 2006 (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 of the debate was REDIRECT to Norwegian Special Force. -- Jonel | Speak 04:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forsvarets Spesialkommando

edit

Other artical exsist: Norwegian Special Forces. It contains more information Babaroga 12:32, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 04:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G.I. Joe casualties

edit

G.I. Joe casualties

Delete. - Not notable to wikipedia. There are no "What links here" links even. (Opes 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. Informative and descriptive, with explanations that expand on the nature of the list. --Dynayellow 16:57, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gift of gag

edit

Unverified, no claim to meeting WP:CORP Werdna648T/C\@ 05:29, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Media

edit

From speedy. Non-notable company. r3m0t talk 18:07, 17 January 2006 (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 of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 05:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murrumbidgee Valley Australian Football Association

edit

Non-notable association. Only 1246 members - no claim to notability. Werdna648T/C\@ 05:11, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bates

edit

nn website. r3m0t talk 21:43, 17 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poker tracker

edit

Delete - advertising of software Constantine lisiy 14:13, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 05:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riverina Football League

edit

An article about a football league with eight teams..? you have to be kidding me. Non-notable in the strictest sense of the word. Werdna648T/C\@ 05:13, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 05:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Round table india

edit

nn club. Reads like an ad. Needs serious cleanup, claim to notability, or deletion Werdna648T/C\@ 05:09, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of non-Muslims

edit

(This article, in another form, was voted delete once before.) Article is original research and hopelessly POV. Delete. Fang Aili 15:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cryptic said [86] that the previous incarnation was almost completely different, thus no speedy. --Fang Aili 16:43, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peached

edit

Dictionary definition of questionable notability. Francs2000   15:49, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV Screens

edit

Compendium of information from various articles on Television. Probably someone's school report. Nowhere to merge to, nothing to merge.-- Perfecto 15:59, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was speedy delete as both non-notable biography and an article which exists solely to disparage its subject. I should have just killed it instead of AfDing, and would have done if I wasn't new at this game. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 15:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Parkinson

edit

Fails WP:BIO and you feel the life force draining from you as you read it. It's cmplete bollocks from begininng to end. And the above broke my AfD helper and killed the auto sig, so now I really hate this article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 16:34, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of heavy metal bands by genre

edit

Poorly constructed article littered with POV problems. Essentially repeats the Metal music article that was voted KEEP in recent AFD. All the metal genres have explanations on them, and most of the genre articles contain a much larger, comphrensive list of bands. Those that dont have lists so large, their is actually articles constructed to list bands of that type of music. Another problem on this note is that many of the bands listed here have no musical connection to the genres they have been placed in, as can be seen by reading the genres articles, and the articles of the bands themself. Finally, most of the supposed genres listed do not exist, and consist of a small group of bands with no musical connection, as all the genres and terms used are listed on the Metal music article with a explanation of their meaning and use. Leyasu 16:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Ok, I just noticed the link to List of heavy metal genres at the bottom of the page, which renders this list wholly redundant. WesleyDodds 11:19, 22 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rsvpair

edit

Delete. Non-notable link spam, the only links on google are free web directories they've submitted themselves to, not ranked on alexa, found spamming other articles such as Template:US-airport Ghewgill 16:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, NN, not even close to meeting WP:Web. Looks like more link spam elsewhere Special:Contributions/71.225.51.24, Special:Contributions/70.50.249.190, Special:Contributions/Rsvpair, [88], and probably more. Be advised that it looks like they're reverting your link spam reverts. Dbchip 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. The agressive reversions of the link removals also seems to confirm the hostile intent of their spamming. Bovineone 16:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood - our only notability (in our minds at least) comes from the fact that we are a large directory - the only free source anywhere to find where air charter planes live in the world. If this does not make us notable, then we can agree - rsvpair does not warrant a page in wikipedia -- yet. If alexa is the judging criteria then we lose. But we don't want to be labelled as spammers for placing our informative links next to other's informative links - we have unique content we wish to share and would like to know how to do this in a fashion consistent with the wikipedia aviation specific content. We had hoped this would be the first tentative steps in a long relationship where we share our data freely with the wikipedia community - building stubs for the missing airports in the directory, we are having meetings tonight to start bulking up the aircraft type pages so there is more information about what each plane is best suited for,etc. How should we proceed? Airwebster 17:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you operate the directory, your motives may be somewhat suspect, and therefore a gentle approach rather than a bold approach, at least when adding links to it or matter concerning it, is probably in order. When you add such a link or material, and it's removed, talk about the changes instead on the talk page of the article or template, rather than reverting the revert. Demi T/C 21:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aggressive linking, reverting, and template modification despite many warnings followed by an impassioned repentence just as it becomes clear they will be deleted is borderline sociopathic and shows a complete lack of respect for Wikipedians and their community. Their only goal is to do whatever necessary to keep their links. A change in tactics after being exposed only further highlights this. Non-notability and similarity to made-for-AdSense previously established. --Lucent 20:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry but I don't think this is an accurate read at all. I see little communication with either user directing them or redirecting them; I think this is probably a useful web directory to link to for some articles and arguing on the basis of someone's supposed "sociopathy" is probably unhelpful. Instead, let's inform new users to discuss disputed changes on the affected talk pages (presumably Template talk:US-airport and Talk:Air charter. Demi T/C 21:40, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was keep. Ichiro (会話| |投稿記録|メール) 01:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jaworski

edit

Pay attention, now: this was originally an apparent vanity bio, speedy deleted as such, reposted speedied again, then worked up to a different bio, during the time Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Jaworski was happening; speedied almost immediately, then speedied again as repost by Stifle, then recreated (possibly due to an open edit session during the deletion) and speedied again by me, leaving the poor editor somewhat befuddled. For the record, this is not the same as the original subject speedied as nn-bio. Due to potential confusions, and at the request of the (genuine) editor working on the current subject, I have reinstated it, and am bringing it here to clarify once and for all whether the current subject qualifies under WP:BIO. For the record, if I did not think this was a likely keep I would probably not have bothered, but what do I know? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 16:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think I see what happened
    1. 00:13, 17 January 2006 - Article with obvious fake content deleted
    2. 00:22, 17 January 2006 - Article recreated with first line of real content.
    3. lots more deletions, speadies tag adding and removal, etc. Meanwhile article steadly improves.--Salix alba (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was Keep, as per the prior discussion closed just 7 hours ago. The prior AFD was not a "no consensus" as Alkivar labelled it. Merger is a matter for the articles' talk pages. Uncle G 18:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tinkerbell (dog)

edit

the previous afd was closed prematurely at 8 Keep to 8 Merge, relisting to avoid a no consensus result.  ALKIVAR™  16:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's either going to be kept or merged, nobody's trying to delete. So I don't see that this is a good candidate for Afd, personally. I'd say merge, but this is a matter for the talk page IMO. Friday (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't close votes early to avoid an unwanted outcome. There were 16 votes for keeping or merging and none for deletion. This isn't articles for merging - this is articles for deletion. Speedy Keep per previous afd and discuss any merging on the articles talk page per standard policy.--God of War 16:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Was not closed prematurely - had been going 6 days and, while that was enough to close it, furthermore no-one had made any comments for about 36 hours [89]. No chance of deletion and this is not the place to discuss merging articles. --Malthusian (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just last night I saw a gift pack of Hilton perfume that included a little beanie-type version of tinkerbell as a bonus item. Exposure in (presumably) many thousands of stores worldwide, in conjunction with appearing on a top-rated network TV series for several years now, equals notability, even if one happens to be a dog. Note, of course, that merging doesn't require any sort of AfD result to do, so if anyone feels really strongly that it should be merged, then go ahead. Full disclosure: I've created a dog article in the past, and may have opinions which may impair full objectivity regarding dog-related deletions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per God of War and my vote the last time around. --SarekOfVulcan 18:36, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was copyvio. DS 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris Jokes

edit

Uncyclopedic (Wikipedia is not a list of jokes), and original contributions are (c) various websites and are not released under GFDL. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 16:25, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton Siple

edit

This poets proper name gets no hits on Google related to writing or poetry, but there are a very small number returned for the pseudonym "Charley Sierra". This subject might be notable, but I just can't find anything which would indicate that so I'm bringing it here for discussion on whether or not this article should be deleted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line.Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas is a-comin' soon!
Pardner, ain't ya seen?
The decorations showed up
In the stores on Halloween!

Dlyons493 Talk 19:01, 22 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Silk

edit

This article is a hoax. Robert Kilroy-Silk's father (William Silk) was a Royal Navy stoker who died in 1943. There are no Carry On films called Carry On Dad or Carry On Please (source). --Muchness 16:42, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was hoax. DS 16:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marl J. Pierce III

edit

Speedy Delete? I can't find any reference via Google to a person matching the article. I suspect that this is a complete fabrication by DeSantisKJ (talk · contribs) who has a sorry record so far at Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Christ Hu 16:46, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WavePad

edit

I believe that this article has been created to promote a product and/or increase the PageRank of nch.com.au.

evidence:

I will clean up the articles Digital audio workstation and Free audio software (obviously WavePad is no Free software). 83.171.153.20 16:46, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chou

edit


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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Pommeranais

edit


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 of the debate was REDIRECT to Tamagotchi. -- Jonel | Speak 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aki Maita

edit

Non-notable. This article has been virtually unchanged for several months, because there's nothing to say about him. He invented the tamagotchi, and that's all. He is named on the tamagotchi page; he doesn't need his own article to reiterate what has already been said. Delete. Redirect per Krash. Kafziel 16:13, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musicat.com (computer program)

edit

Non-notable web service. Reads like an ad. Haakon 16:00, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRANGO real-time embedded hypervisor 2

edit

Previously AFDed and deleted, but relisted following petition at DRV. My vote is delete. -R. fiend 17:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV discussion


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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkiepoo

There are 500 breeds of dogs. Any of them can be mixed and anyone can name the mixes anything they want. (E.g., see American hybrid "registry" and Poodle hybrid and Dog hybrids and crossbreeds#Casual crossbreeds.) I realize that WP is not paper, but mostly what can be said about mixed-breed dogs is that they might have some characteristics of either parent, or not (if you also look at Maltipoo and Schnoodle you'll see what I mean). We've discussed this within the dog breed project before and feel that all these do is create multiple mixed-breed-dog articles. We're leaving in Cockapoo because it's been around long enough to be the only mixed-breed name to make it into the dictionary, and Labradoodles are so common as to be found in just about every puppies-for-sale list everywhere, with Goldendoodles getting pretty close, but I'm hesitant to open the floodgates for articles about everyone's mixed-breed dog with an invented name. Also recommending AFD for Maltipoo and Schnoodle . Elf | Talk 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The sheer number of google hits makes it notable, sure, but if you look at the various web sites that provide information on these dogs, these sources are not credible. Notabity is only one part of the picture, check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources, check out Wikipedia:Verifiability. These sheer numbers doesn't mean anything, because they aren't reliable sources. Tons of ads for puppies? A couple amateurish "breed clubs" web sites.. dogbreedinfo.com. At most the reliable information provided on these designer dogs comes from casual mentions in magazine articles about the current trend with designer dogs - these articles focus on Go to amazon and search for maltipoo. You won't find anything. There are a couple notable exceptions, such as Labradoodle, there is a distinct history. - Trysha (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hybrids of dogs are getting increasingly popular; Many hybrids have qualities that can not be described on any other less specific entry such as the original breeds of the hybrid or a hybrid list page. --Msc44 18:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Promotes misinformation. And Merge anything useful that was left with Poodle hybrids - These dogs are hybrids and do not breed true, you can only guess at the features that such hybrids will have. You won't always get the coat of a poodle, or the temperment of a basset, or the shedding qualities of a westie - you can just HOPE that you get these things. Besides, having an article about each of combonation of breeds will be, how many entries?. Even if all such articles are created, they will not be useful, as they are perpetutating the misinformation that these dogs are actual true beeding lines. - Trysha (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seemed suspicious to me too, but a google search produce 27,800 results, mostly ads for those selling them. I understand User:Trysha's comments, though. Maybe as more breeds are added, some type of definite policy can be formed. But I say keep for now.--Esprit15d 18:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, you cannot define what a "fooApoo" is. Other than "it will have aspects of a foo, and a poodle, but you really cannot predict which set of aspects". Yes, the ads are out there, but it's all marketing hype. They simply aren't breeds, and if you wanted to have an NPOV article about them, it wouldn't be a "dog breed" format article as these dogs hybrids cannot really be described in any meaningful way - The article would be an article about the marketing success of selling hybrid dogs. More breeds than these have been added, the result of those were all adding redirects to the apropriate hybrids page. That should be done here. - Trysha (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think they should all be merged into the poodle hybrids article since the vast majority are mixed with the poodle. I don't agree with adding information about hybrids to the pure bred articles either. Maltmomma (chat) 18:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the strongest possible terms. These are never considered dog breeds. I overheard a conversation in a Sydney pet store recently and even the salesgirl was describing a "moodle" as a crossbreed to the sucker--oops--I mean the customer. The sellers of these crosses cannot even agree on what they're called--"moodle"??! The fact that such things rate on Google thanks to ads from sellers cannot be taken seriously.
More importantly, User Msc44 is not correct: there are not significant distinguishing remarks to be made for these crosses, so the result is a proliferation of articles that all say the say basic thing, to wit: this is a cross between a poodle and a .... they have varying appearances blah blah blah, with a photograph.
We would really like Wikiproject dogs to be taken seriously, wouldn't we?
Quill 22:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately the celebrities that have these mixed breed dogs are doing a disservice to purebred dogs. It's a shame that you can take two different breeds of dogs, breed them and sell them for a disgusting amount of money. What they should be doing if they want a mixed breed dog, or even a purebred dog for that matter, is to go to the pound. That would help stop BYBer's and puppy millers from making a buck off of this "newest fad." JMO Maltmomma (chat) 00:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with you - but it's not the job of an encyclopedia to make a moral judgment. Tearlach 00:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. I just find myself climbing my soapbox when I hear about celebrities touting the latest fad. I apologize. Maltmomma (chat) 02:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't care a whit about whether dogs are purebred or not. Most of my smart, talented, beautiful dogs have been mixed breeds. But I'm not trying to create articles on Wikipedia about Semidachshunds, Craussies, Labrasheps, or Golden Shepherds. I must admit, though, having started this thing months ago and having promoted it, too (not doing articles on random mixed breeds), I think I am starting to be swayed by the preponderance of Internet occurrences. I'm just still not entirely convinced that one can legitimately say anything other than "it might...or might not...be like its parent breeds." And I'm not quite sure where one draws the line on "worth having an article for"--100 internet occurrences? 1000? Mumbling off into the night... Elf | Talk 05:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others have previously said, notability is the only factor that should be considered. The schnoodle breed, for one, is notable, having been featured in publications such as Time magazine. As for allegations that the article implies that poodle crosses are true breeds, fix it! The fact that an article has incorrect information in it is not grounds for deleting the whole thing. -Vontafeijos 01:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the problem is not that the article has incorrect infromation, the problem is that the article CANNOT have accruate infromation because - there is no way to define what one of these dogs will look like. Any article that says these dogs have "attribute x from one parent and attribute y from another" is pushing a POV. These dogs are a roll of the dice, unless you get breeders specifically breeding for traits. - Trysha (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And yet the Labradoodle, Goldendoodle, and Cockapoo articles are not being considered for deletion because they are notable enough. Those are also dog breed crosses, a "roll of the dice," but we are keeping them because they are "so common as to be found in just about every puppies-for-sale list." If we're keeping those because they are notable, who defines which poodle crosses are notable and which are not?
Also, the article can easily have accurate information by describing what most poodle crosses inherit from each parent, and where there can be variations. If there is enough variation between breeds for people to seek out specific poodle crosses, then there must be enough variation to explore in a Wikipedia article. -Vontafeijos 04:19, 20 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE (see discussion at WP:AFD/Yorkiepoo). -- Jonel | Speak 05:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maltipoo

edit

Vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorkiepoo. Elf | Talk 17:54, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE (see discussion at WP:AFD/Yorkiepoo. -- Jonel | Speak 05:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schnoodle

edit

Vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorkiepoo. Elf | Talk 17:55, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Principality of Shaneland

edit

Nonsense, hoax article. Only reason why it wasn't speedied is the fact there's an image that also needs to be deleted, plus it seems several different users are contributing to this 23skidoo 18:07, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was merge and redirect to the club article. Johnleemk | Talk 11:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gloucester City footballers

edit

Nomination for all of the following: Matt Bath, Chris Thompson (football), Marvin Thompson, Tom Webb, Darryl Addis, Luke Corbett, Adie Harris and Dave Wilkinson.

All of these are players at Gloucester City, a minor semi-professional (i.e. part-time) football club from England that competes in the Southern League Premier Division, the seventh tier of English football; there are over 140 teams ranking above them, and their average home attendance is 337 [90]. None of these players are currently professionals. Two of them were had short spells at minor professional sides when they were younger (Chris Thompson at Northampton and Luke Corbett at Cheltenham), but neither made a significant number of first-team appearances for these clubs (six and one respectively): these are not seasoned pros who have stepped down a few divisions in the twilights of their careers, but players who never made the grade in the first place. As none of them have had significant careers as fully professional athletes, they do not meet the criteria set out in WP:BIO so Delete All as non-notable.

NB This is a similar nomination to last week's WP:AfD/Dorchester Town footballers, about players at Dorchester Town, who play in the division above Gloucester. All were deleted. Qwghlm 18:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Marvin Thompson was at Cheltenham is not mentioned in the argument to delete these players. It is a fact that they are not all "seasoned pros who have stepped down a few divisions in the twilights of their careers". Corbett is 21, Marvin Thompson 19, Tom Webb 21 (and was at Luton Town when younger), Chris Thompson is 23. These are all players who are improving and who will play at higher levels. There is also a discussion to be had as to what image of Wikipedia this systematic elitism (Gloucester after Dorchester) gives out to the millions of fans of semi-professional football around the world. They don't all get paid millions by Arsenal, but in their county they are household names, get mentioned on radio and television, have newspaper articles devoted to them, and matter to people. WP:BIO was meant as a guide to ensure sensible contributions; if it is to be used as a stick to beat any football team outside of the 92 "Great and Good", then perhaps it has been perverted from its original purposes and should be updated to more accurately reflect the fluidity of the pyramid structure. How long before the players of Stockport County become "non-notable" ? Dave Hatton 01:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I wouldn't say that's entirely true. They may be household names in some football-loving households in Gloucester, but I'm from Gloucestershire (Cheltenham) and I've never heard of them. The average attendance at Gloucester games speaks volumes, I think. --kingboyk 21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is possible that one of these players is destined for greater things and becomes a full-time professional, but until they have achieved that they should not be included. They don't earn millions at Arsenal, but they're not even earning thousands at Stockport (the bottom club in the Football League at this point in time) right now. In fact, they are currently playing for a side over 50 places beneath Stockport, that attracts a crowd of only a few hundred (which makes your claim they're "household names" rather dubious).

      Your worry about deleting Stockport players should they be relegated is not an option. They have played dozens if not hundrerds of matches as professionals, and that achievement cannot be undone. The Gloucester players, on the other hand, have done next to nothing at the professional level of the game. You might call that "elitism", but Wikipedia demands that they be notable in their field. Qwghlm 08:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have chosen to carefully twist what I actually said: I claimed that they were "county household names" due to media reporting.

      I have no worries about Stockport players being deleted should they be unfortunate to be deleted, but this would mean the end of their supporters (or anyone else) being able to create entries for new Stockport players in the future without the prospect of contibutors such as yourself deleting them. The only players that they would be allowed to work on would be older players moving through the pyramid. This would apply to any club that was relegated to the Conference.

      Any players listed for F.C. United of Manchester or AFC Wimbledon would also be due for deletion by you unless they had played a number of games (specified by yourself) for the top 92 clubs.

      You also chose to ignore other points such as players being put on trial twice.

      Adie Harris was one of the players you listed for deletion, but he has played for Aberystwyth Town. Are you going to claim that a national league is not notable?

Dave Hatton, 22 Jan 2006

I don't think they even qualify as household names in their own county - Gloucestershire has a population of 820,000, the city of Gloucester 110,000, and yet only three or four hundred actually turn up to watch them play every week. I haven't the resources to do ask every person in Gloucestershire but those numbers give me reason to believe that not many local people are going to have heard of them as you make out.
I will push for deletion any player who has not had significant experience playing as a professional in the Football League (and I don't count the League of Wales, as most of its members are semi-pro and were formerly in the English non-league system), regardless of what club they currently play for - AFCW, FCUM, Stockport, Gloucester, whatever. To let players whose experience is mostly semi-professional into Wikipedia would make a mockery of the notability guideline and mean literally tens of thousands of stubby biographies of footballers few people have heard of can be added. Qwghlm 21:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it "makes a mockery" of anything. There are effectively no space restrictions in Wikipedia and the guidelines for people in other fields don't set the bar all that high. For example, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People still alive states that authors who've sold more than 5,000 books and musicians who've sold more than 5,000 albums "may be included in Wikipedia". I don't know what that translates to with regard to footballers, but a musician who's only sold 5,000 albums doesn't strike me as being any more notable than a good Conference player.
I'm not in favour of creating a load of short stubs though. If people want to look at one Gloucester City player then there's a good chance that they'll want to look up some others, so I'd recommend starting off with a single page for all of them, as with FCUM, and then splitting them out using summary style when/if there's too much info to fit it sensibly onto one page. If I get enough information about one of FCUM's more notable players (not really likely in the near future) I'll do this, and strongly oppose any attempts to delete it.
As far as I'm concerned, the guidelines are there to stop people writing about their mate who plays for a pub team and so on. It doesn't do WP any harm to have articles on non-league players; if anything I find it quite impressive. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if in the book world, you need to have around 5,000 people hand over money to read your work in order to be notable, then the parallel in the footballing world would be having around 5,000 people hand over money to watch you play (the average Football League Two attendance is about this, maybe a little less [92]). Gloucester's average gate is 337 - less than a tenth of this - that's not just a little bit off but falling far short of it.
If you want to put information about the current squad in the current Gloucester City A.F.C. page then fine, it's probably a good place for it and I'm not going to delete it from there. But that's not the concern here - the concern is whether these individuals deserve to have a page to themselves, and they clearly do not - not by WP's standards, anyway. Qwghlm 08:42, 23 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Land

edit

This article is about an individual's personal web page that hosts the usual photos, CV, and the like. One or two hosted pieces of software might be themselves notable, but that doesn't make the website itself encyclopedic. Likely unverifiable through outside sources as well. CDC (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carry On Please

edit

Hoax: there is no Carry On film called Carry On Please (source). --Muchness 18:20, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Kyle

edit

Non notable person per db-bio. The article's author has been known to make hoax entries and has recently been banned for doing so. Grandwazir 18:38, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep One (disambiguation)

edit

Unnecessary. Contains only two entries, one of which (Deep One) has its own disambiguated article.
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 18:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Why not? They have similar titles, and the articles' validity aren't being challenged. I can easily see someone looking for one and getting the other, and not knowing how to go about finding it. I say keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esprit15d (talk • contribs) .


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 of the debate was keep --Ichiro (会話| |投稿記録|メール) 01:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iconfactory

edit

Vanity, non-notable. Rick Browser 18:50, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was merge and redirect as per Ruud. Johnleemk | Talk 11:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew 1:2

edit

This is a single verse in the bible. Wikipedia does not need individual articles on every verse in the bible. We should have articles on interesting or controversial ones, but this isn't an interesting one. The verse simply says:

Abraham became the father of Isaac.
Isaac became the father of Jacob.
Jacob became the father of Judah
and his brothers.

..This article says nothing more than this verse and the verses near it in the bible do. It was VFD'd by -Ril- before, but kept. I feel that part of this is because it was put in a lump vfd with a ton of other verse articles. That type of listing does not tend to produce good results. So, basically, I'd like to delete this because it's not interesting or important enough for an encyclopedia. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 19:01, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School House

edit

Delete Not notable. This is a "house" at Uppingham School. I'm not aware of any other houses of public schools in England that have an article. RicDod 19:07, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School House, Uppingham

edit

Delete Same as for School House. No other house of a public school in England has an article as far as I am aware. RicDod 19:15, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of greatest Jeopardy! champions and List of notable Jeopardy! contestants

edit

This is listcruft whose subject doesn't even match the title; it purports to be a list of greatest players, but the article says it's notable players, which aren't the same thing. The latter is already redundant with the Category: Jeopardy! anyway. An earlier version had more information, but most of it, being inaccurate, was removed. What's left is useless. since "greatest" is somewhat subjective (by money won? Most wins? Do we account for the doubling of the values? What about those players who were kicked off after 5 games, unlike Ken?) I don't think it can be salvaged. The most important statistics are already at the Jeopardy article. -R. fiend 19:14, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lorcan parnell

edit

Don't believe this is a speedy since article does state some notability but IMO not notable enough for Wikipedia entry. Also verges on vanity page. Delete Atrian 19:15, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soulescape.com

edit

Blatent advertising. Wondered if this could be speedied, but couldn't find a criteria that matched (please correct me if there is). Delete. Petros471 19:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Soulescape --Petros471 20:23, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ditherals

edit
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Bearcat. Stifle 11:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now undeleted and reopened, per WP:DRV, as the speedy was deemed improper. As this discussion was never allowed to run its course, I decided to repost rather than renominate. Votes below are still valid. -R. fiend 19:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRV discussion --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 200 google hits, and 6 unique hits outside of blogs, therefore not common usage MNewnham 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Proto t c 17:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Related to this [[96]]
  • I am shocked that you want to delete this page. Ditherals is not widely used by the mainstream media, but is much more commonly used in regular speach and very common in political blogs especially in this election season. If someone is reading a blog, and comes accross Ditherals, they should be able to go to Wikipedia to look it up. Why delete it? I strongly object to the deletion request. There is no "common usage" criteria in Wikipedia's deletion protocol.
    • There most certainly is a "common usage" criterion in Wikipedia's deletion protocol; to merit an article, things on here have to be (a) verifiable, (b) notable, (c) encyclopedic, and (d) neutral and unbiased. This is none of the above. Consider it speedied. And before you make the accusation I know you're just itching to make, I am not a Liberal Party of Canada member, supporter or voter. Bearcat 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I protest and repeat that there is no common usage criterion in Wikipedia's deletion protocol. A word does not have to be in common usage to be (a) verifiable, (b) notable, (c) encyclopedic. There hare thousands of Wikipedia entries in uncommon usage that are all verifiable, notable and encyclopedic. The definition was not written in a baised manner. You have deleted the page without 'Wikipedia community consensus' and in violation of Wikipedia's deletion protocol which requires community consensus. Please revive the page to aviod going throught the deletion review process. Readers of Canadian Poltics blogs are coming accross the word Ditherals every day. Lastly, you accuse me of "itching to make the accusation that you are a member of the Liberal Party of Canada" without justification and I request that you retract that statement. -Palmerston — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmerston (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 January 2006


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 of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: AN AFD RESULT IS IMMATERIAL WITH REGARD TO DECISIONS ABOUT REDIRECTING, MERGING OR KEEPING AS IS AFTER IT HAS CONCLUDED. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD AS A REASON TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT. Johnleemk | Talk 11:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greet Grottendieck

edit

Delete stub about a dutch sculptur. There appear to be about 40 hits on google about this person, and I can find no claim to importance (though I haven't read all 40 google hits). Mindmatrix 19:44, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klan of the Drox Universe

edit

NN fiction. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drox. Delete Kusma (討論) 19:57, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Notable Cannabis users

edit

Listcruft. As the article's talk page says, there is already a list of iconic smokers, and there is a subsection for cannabis smokers there. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

Which is actually fine by me. I gave the redundancy as my reason, but even that one isn't that valid. Although initially it did require they admit it in an interview or writing so was a bit stricter.--T. Anthony 14:23, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semini

edit

Belongs to NN private fictional universe, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drox. Delete. Kusma (討論) 20:16, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thurman Tree

edit

Part of NN fictional universe, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drox. Delete. Kusma (討論) 20:15, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Snipers

edit

I originally deleted this article about a gaming clan on site, but the author requested it be restored. I will not participate in the discussion and wish to remain neutral. Thunderbrand 20:18, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 05:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brennage

edit

Delete; blanked page, was re-routed to Wikitionary Lockley 20:22, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was speedy deleted under criteria G9 "Making room for a page move that is non-controversial or is consensual, for instance reversing a redirect, or removing a disambig page that only points to a single article." --TimPope 21:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultravox!

edit

Disambiguation page is overkill (with currently only 2 pages linking to it). After deletion, the album could be moved to this title. What's currently there could be integrated on the disambiguation page Ultravox (disambiguation) instead. -- Dissident (Talk) 20:24, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 8 15 16 23 42

edit

Pointless fancruft, there's already a section about the numbers on the main Lost article. Jtrost 21:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, This article has been previously deleted, [98]. --NaconKantari 22:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it would be best to redirect this article to the main Lost article to avoid another afd in the future. Jtrost 22:19, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 04:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laos Crips

edit

Unverifiable [99]. - Liberatore(T) 21:09, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional people with prank call names

edit

non-notable list of two barely connected names, unverifiable and uncyclopedic. At the very best move to wikibooks humor section, but since there has been no interest in writing this article since it's creation, probably better to just delete it. Author of article had a few months to respond to charges that the article be made encyclopedic somehow. See WP: NOT 1.7, 2, have these two names contributed significantly to the topic of amusing names? Are they famous? Lotusduck 21:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed it to help it, actually. It's a list of prank call names, not a list of fictional people known for their names. Arguably, all characters are known for their show, not name. Secondly, the two names listed don't appear to be characters at all, but just prank call names used in some capacity. Don't assume bad faith, I didn't title it "two prank call names" after all. Nobody has expanded this in any way in the four months since its' creation. If by being longer it becomes encyclopedic, how is it going to get longer in the first place? Lotusduck 23:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did. I'll always try everything I can to make an article accurate and encyclopedic before trying nominating it for deletion, and what's the point in waiting around before making a decision when it's about a four month dead page? Why, do you think that those two prank call names are better titled as characters with names known for being amusing? Lotusduck 23:23, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtus ferrum

edit

A fictional sword, not well-known. Nowhere to merge, really (EverQuest Online Adventures lacks sections about items and/or character classes). Punkmorten 21:42, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was DELETE (Drini (talk · contribs) has already done so, with this AfD as reasoning). -- Jonel | Speak 05:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confud

edit

Just a leet term. Not so exciting --Dangherous 22:03, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commiserated

edit

Just a dict defn. Not worthy here


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 of the debate was DELETE (Drini (talk · contribs) has already done so, with this AfD as reasoning). -- Jonel | Speak 05:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porn.bat

edit

nn virus/trojan. May have been famous at some point but doesn't look like it's worth a mention anymore Hirudo 21:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this has nothing to do with the trojan/virus. This file simply contained deltree C:\*.* as people say. This "porn.bat" belongs to our university "spirit" and lot of people ask what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.120.136 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 23 January 2006

Porn.bat is something very similar to "All your base are belong to us". It's just a deviation of a bit smaller group of people.

You can listen to porn.bat related mp3's at http://porn.dot-bat.net/01-Dastych_Live_In_K1-Porn.bat.mp3 or http://porn.dot-bat.net/02-Dastych_Live_In_K1-Kolej_neni_byt.mp3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.119.23 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 January 2006


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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algebra of physical space

edit

This article does not meet the original reason for its creation (easy to read). It needs a more consistent background to be readable and most of the links do not fit in the context (only confusing the reader). However, this material may appear in the future as a wikibook - CSD from User:Cabrer7, not CSD listing here instead-- pgk(talk) 22:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Real, verifiable topic in mathematical physics. Admittedly, the article is horribly over-technical, has too many unexplained equations, and goes into too much detail for a general-purpose encyclopedia, but none of these are valid reasons for deletion. ManoaChild 23:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above; although I cannot resist thinking that most of this should be merged into the various topics it discusses, leaving this as a commented list of possible algebraic models of physical space. Septentrionalis 06:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Content is verifiable and notable, albeit badly written. This article attempts to write many of the basic concepts in physics in terms of geometric algebra. This is well covered in the listed references. The content should probably be merged with geometric algebra or the page renamed (something with geometric algebra in the title would be appropriate). -- Fropuff 07:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwikified. I am the main author of this article and I admit that I did not choose a good name. I suggest to transwikify it as a wikibook immediately. The title would be different though, perhaps "Geometric Algebra Applied to Physics. An Approach from the Algebra of Physical Space". The range is too wide to fit in a single article because the applications range from Classical Mechanics to Quantum Mechanics. In this way I could write the contents of the links in the context of the algebra with the same notation. --User:Cabrer7, January 19 2006
So where's the transwikified version? and will you be trimming down this article? linas 04:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The general structure of the wiki book is at

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Physics_in_the_Language_of_Geometric_Algebra._An_Approach_with_the_Algebra_of_Physical_Space This wikipedia article will be shortened soon --User:Cabrer7, January 23 2006


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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Strange Occurrences of Science

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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claimants of the Duchy of Braganza

edit

From CSD tag by User:BBird This article sole objective is to try to invent a controversy that does not exist in real life. The issue of non legitimate pretenders might deserve a paragraph the history of Portuguese monarchy, not more than that. The status of Mr. Poidimani, which nobody knows, is only defended by a sole anon editor (probably the pretender himself or someone very close)-- pgk(talk) 22:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article has a big importance about the Portuguese succession. In this article are described also the pretension of other two pretenders and their affermations. About the Pact of Paris, also if this really existed, now there is no documental proof of this Pact and also Mr. Duarte Pio of Braganza in his last book affirms this. If these my affermations are false please Mr BBird to inform me and other Portoguese People where is possible to see this important document. This document is foundamental for the Crown Rights of Duarte Pio and he based his rights on this Pact that none have seen. M.deSousa 19 January 2006 (UTC)


about the "famous" false Pact of Paris... see this offer [100]

  • Delete. M.deSousa's attempts to turn Wikipedia into a promotional site for their campaign to push the alleged pretender status of someone largely unheard of even in Portugal is getting tedious at this stage. They seem to jump from article to article pushing that agenda. We don't need yet another article going over the same goddamned thing again. Articles on this topic seem to be breeding like rabbits. Frankly, most of us are fed up of dealing with this crap. If M.deSousa wants to promote the royal claims of someone, open up a blog and stop trying to use WP to push the claim. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The basic issue is that the only pretender with any following is Dom Duarte. Technically, there is reason to question his claim under the legal order of succession of the 19th century Portuguese monarchical constitution, but nobody in fact does so. The only actual challenge comes from this Poidimani character, and it is rather difficult to see where he comes by any claim at all, his claim being that he is the adopted heir of a bastard daughter of the second-to-last king of Portugal. All this article does is give false legitimacy to this fellow's nonsense. Beyond that, the article is mistitled for an article on general issues of Portuguese monarchism, since it is not the "Duchy" (Dukedom?) of Braganza that anybody cares about. john k 07:29, 21 January 2006 (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 of the debate was KEEP, per Uncle G's expansion of this into an encyclopedia article. -- Jonel | Speak 05:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consularize

edit

small amount on yahoo! search --Dangherous 22:09, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornball

edit

Not Wikipedia worthy. Just another insulting term. --Dangherous 22:15, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul dever

edit

At best, I assume this is a joke we'd like to delete, possibly speedy as an attack. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:18, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Costwall

edit

Borderline one this, for me. Poor yahoo! search engine test results. --Dangherous 22:18, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims Is About To Get Ugly

edit

Some online game engine based movie?, doesn't seem notable with 12 hits in google [101]. If deleted, proceed also with the deletion of the included images. feydey 22:19, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cradit

edit

A misspelling of credit? --Dangherous 22:34, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crapsized

edit

Didn't warrant a yahoo! search. Stupid article --Dangherous 22:35, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut in

edit

The definition confuses me greatly. --Dangherous 22:51, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybernetic creep

edit

If Angus T. K. Wong is a blue link, then ignore this AFD. If its red, call this not notable --Dangherous 22:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's an interesting concept but not a real term. I did a Google search and did find one non-mirror reference to "Cybernetic Creep". It was from a horror.com forum: "the cybernetic soildiers grew nearer then chased her towards a pond,and a face appeared dragging mud all over it and grabbed her legs then sank her head underneath the mud and spiky shells and stabbed her in the back...but a blue haired biker grabbed the cybernetic creep and threw him againest a tree then he grabbed Charlene and his buddies and his girlfriend and him hid in the underneath part of the house then hid there,then the chainsaw and two fists burst through the floor and grabbed two of the bikers ans slit their throughs open then threw them into the fireplace...now was the moment of truth..." Thank heavens for the blue-haired biker! --Thunk 00:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There does appear to be a Angus TK Wong out there. If citations can be found for this term, then a transwiki to Wikitionary might be in order. Kerowyn 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn Incognito 04:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:02, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete; unverifiable. Johnleemk | Talk 12:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cysllyasis

edit

I'm no butterfly expert, but I think this is a misspelling of something else. A yahoo! search offers nothing but mirror sites --Dangherous 22:59, 18 January 2006 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Parrish Irvin

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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RG Annals

edit

Article about an non-notable website. --Austrian 23:25, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Cunningham

edit

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Jerzy as nn-bio, with the reason, "'most fundamental theory of physics' is closest thing to a claim of notability, but means nothing if the theory is not accepted as plausible by *competantly* trained physicists." Since I know nothing of theoretical physics, I didn't feel comfortable speedying it. howcheng {chat} 23:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete zero relevant links from google for "Bruce Cunningham" or "www.originoftheuniverse.com". Smells like original research but not absolutely sure J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  00:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn crank. Ashibaka tock 02:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's difficult to find any details about his theory. His web page seems to be designed to promote his book, and gives few details. His book appears to have attracted almost no attention. He appears to have been a featured speaker at a "Natural Philosophy Alliance" conference, which might be a claim to notability, but that organization seems to be little-known, fringe group. ManoaChild 02:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. All but states it is OR. "Self-studied" in this field is almost a guarantee of two things: interest based on the mystical and awestriking status of modern physics, and nevertheless inadequate knowledge for what he claims to have accomplished. The people who can begin to attempt this have about 10 years fulltime study under their belts, so i felt no need for Google-tests before predicting non-notability.
    --Jerzy•t 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmt: Howcheng's caution is admirable and not resented; i speedy-tagged rather than executing my own speedy to be sure i wasn't the only one it was obvious to; our different judgement on it is good reason for the AfD route rather than speedy, so thanks.
    --Jerzy•t 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 09:42, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was REDIRECT to Great railroad strike of 1877

Railroad Strikes of 1877

edit

article was listed for cleanup/merge with a similar article. A new article with more information and footnotes exists at Great railroad strike of 1877 Jim62sch 23:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: the orginal articles, both tagged for clean-up and merge served as a mere basis to begin writing (both articles were rather small and were inadequately referenced). Most of the current article (Great railroad strike of 1877) was based on new research, hence the numerous footnotes and new sections. Jim62sch 11:24, 19 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Rasmussen

edit

Self promotion, nn-bio. Delete or Userfy abakharev 23:48, 18 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postulate of Numerical Relevance

edit

Nom and vote
Del. As the author says, this is dumb. Breathtakingly dumb. It was speedied under G1, but alas, not WP:PN, being specifically excluded there in falling short of

Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.

An intelligent person with an introductory knowledge of differential calculus can see that Aaron has, in an awkward way, postulated that "relevant" means means the same as "varying with respect to some variable". It makes enough sense that it has a clear meaning, in contrast to things that make so little sense that you can't be sure they are false ideas. This deserves deletion as Original research and as a Non-notable idea, so worthless that its falsehood has needed no discussion until it was dumped here.
--Jerzy•t 23:51, 18 January 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_18&oldid=1234127640"