Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 20

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 pending investigation of the unsupported allegation of copyright infringement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of the Ming Dynasty

This article has a Copyright Violation notice on it that has not been fixed in almost two months. NicAgent 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was going to try to see what was not copyvio... but I found the site was in Chinese characters and didn't see where the copyvio came from from googling a few parts of it. gren グレン ^? 17:29, 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.

Ryan Dowling

Delete non-notable vanity about member of non-notable band Ruby 23:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as non-notable, vanity bio. Tagged as such. Ifnord 00:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as above. --Deiz 00:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per above. Deadsalmon 00:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --
  話)|(郵便) 02:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 CSD A7 by Lucky 6.9

The Tipplin' Weigh

Delete this band has zero albums to its credit Ruby 23:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Amazon10x 00:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as non-notable band. Tagged as such. Ifnord 00:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ruby. Deadsalmon 00:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --
  話)|(郵便) 02:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Gone. - Lucky 6.9 02:31, 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 NO CONSENSUS. This is a tough one. There are good arguments made on both the keep and delete side (exactly one each, actually) and neither seems to overwhelm the other. I fear that WP:BIO may miss its mark on this kind of article, dealing with an author publishing before the advent of the mass media, althought it seems undeniable that the person hasn't made a widely recognized contribution to their field. A combination of facts tips me away from delete: that we are only barely over the two-thirds level that is oft-used (although there are an unusually high number of deleters) and that, on the assumption the article is not a work of fiction, the presence of the address as of 1909 (!) is a strong indicator that, somewhere out there, is a source from which The CA Birthday Book has taken its material. (Incidentally, the copyright for the Birthday book says that it is public domain in the US, so that's ok.) -Splash^talk 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Archer

This article seems to be just copied out of "The California Birthday Book" of 1906. No references in the standard Gale databases, Chadwick's Literature Online, no NY Times obit, no relevant google hits as far as I could tell. Not sure if this person is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry and I certainly don't think this single reference is enough to sustain one. Delete. Gamaliel 00:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing notable here. Ruby 00:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- I'd need more evidence that this is an article of verifiable importance. NorseOdin 00:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 00:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I couldn't reasonably expect a lot on Google for an obscure turn-of-the-century poet. I did manage to at least verify that her book Little Poems is real. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Starblind. --King of All the Franks 01:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 05:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiable, somewhat notable. Page needs wikifying. Marskell 09:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment do we need to know her box number? It's not like she's going to answer post. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Varifiable, needs a clean up or some sort - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 13:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: borderline verifiable, but without more information it is impossible to establish notablility. WP:BIO test is 'Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?' The book copy at [1] is a numbered subscriber copy, indicating a very small print run, and none of her books are in the Library of Congress (as far as I could tell); essentially, then, she had no impact or contribution at all, which is why information about her is hard to find today. - squibix 14:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Squibix -Amazon10x 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There doesn't seem to be enough info on the person at the moment to warrant keeping this article alive. The fact it hasn't been edited in a year doesn't suggest it will be expanded anytime soon either. -Spartanfox86 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable article. --COA 20:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Squib. Eusebeus 20:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per squibix. -R. fiend 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'd say keep it if it was new, but it's had over a year to grow and it hasn't expanded in content. - dharmabum (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn & unexpandable. Renata 09:56, 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 DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shesca

Delete - Article asserts its own non-notability Ruby 00:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I happen to be a fan of Full Metal Alchemist and I have seen the whole series, so you might as well take my vote on this as the gospel truth. Anyway, Sciezka is a somewhat minor character, and as you can see, spelling depends on the romanization. The only thing notable about her is her perfect memory of many full books in a library that burned down (this is a major plot point). Anyway, she's not notable enough to get her own article; she can be discussed just fine in the main FMA article or a subsidiary article that covers the characters. Cyde Weys 00:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ruby and Cyde. Deadsalmon 00:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --
  話)|(郵便) 02:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, yes, FMA. Delete. - CorbinSimpson 06:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I trust Cyde's judgement, also this looks like animecruft. JIP | Talk 09:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per eloquent argument in the article, and Cyde. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content; don't care whether redirected or deleted. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 10:33Z
• Delete per Cyde -Spartanfox86 19:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cyde --COA 20:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - dharmabum (talk) 01:14, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. Punkmorten 13:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krawutschke Tower

Not too notable tower, and machine-translated anyway. Suggest deletion. Kusma (討論) 00:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I couldn't fix it, perhaps someone fluent in German can save it. Ruby 00:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After repair of the article I still want it to be deleted because it looks like somebody's tree fort. Ruby 19:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can certainly empathise with that :-) Dlyons493 Talk 21:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find it in either Yahoo or Google; likely not of sufficient importance to merit an article — although perhaps someone with a greater knowledge of German architecture / history can refute this. Deadsalmon 00:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, keeping in mind above suggestions. --King of All the Franks 00:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be a poor translation from de.wiki [2]. Improve rather than delete Dlyons493 Talk 01:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a translation, but a work of the Babelfish. Compare this: [3]. No human work will be lost if this article is deleted. Kusma (討論) 02:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've done a basic translation. The article should probably be moved. Dlyons493 Talk 05:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep referenced, fairly notable. Found a couple more references: [4], [5], [6], [7] -- Astrokey44|talk 05:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as its been translated properly now Jcuk 09:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as translated by User:Dlyons493. JIP | Talk 09:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep but only because there's no obvious target for a merge Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per JzG. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 10:31Z
• Keep. Maybe tag as stub. --StuffOfInterest 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Seems like there could be more to it. Improve rather than delete and stub if necessary -Spartanfox86 19:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nice little article with picture. Piccadilly 22:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the f'ing tower stood in Kansas, it wouldn't even be nominated for deletion, I'm sure. Damn US-centrism. —Nightstallion (?) 23:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Kansas is so flat you'd be able to see the Sears Tower in Chicago from the dang thing. Ruby 00:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I find it amusing to be accused of US-centrism. I do live in the US right now, but most USAns I know seem to think that I have a German perspective of things. Anyway...
• Nomination withdrawn, the work of Dlyons493 should not go to waste. Kusma (討論) 01:27, 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 Speedy delete (A7). Physchim62 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George and the Pirates

nn band, changed to speedy by original nominator Ruby 00:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That was me, thanks for the save, I'm still learning wiki conventions, how to delete, etc. A basic vanity page, it seems to me, thus I vote

Speedy Delete based on vanity, non-notable. KrazyCaley 03:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as
  non-notable musical group. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 08:40Z
• Delete per above. Marskell 09:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of meeting any criterion in
  WP:NMG Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete and tagged such. Non-notable band. Ifnord 14:39, 25 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. -Splash^talk 22:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tereza Kulata

Possible vanity, certainly nn. 11 Google hits of which only 2 are definitely related to the subject. Everyone loves a teenage eastern European artist but... Delete --Deiz 00:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if this artist had a more extensive portfolio of published works I would vote to keep. Ruby 00:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --
  話)|(郵便) 02:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Tereza studies(ed) gymnasium, she's talented (she won region's high school competition in English [8]), she had drawn few sketches and someone thankful expressed himself here. No child prodigy, though. Pavel Vozenilek 03:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC): And btw, she's from Central Europe, not Eastern. Pavel Vozenilek 03:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thx for that important correction. Maybe I should have said "Former Soviet Bloc artist" instead... --Deiz 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, she was born at the time of Bloc collapse. And even older people do not identify themselves with political regime. Pavel Vozenilek 00:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because, as Ruby hints above, an illustrator of many books is interestiong, while an illustrator of one is probably not. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arbustoo 02:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --
  e Ong 04:48, 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 Speedy deleted by User:Alabamaboy (who forgot to close) as copyright violation —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 08:33Z

Canadian Eagle Outfitters

Delete because it is advertising for a non-notable entity. A quick visit to their free website informs the reader that they "may not become a business as it was planned" and they do not even have a shop available Fightindaman 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as spamvert and crystal ballism. Ifnord 00:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for being formed in the "late 05's" Ruby 00:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as spam, vanity, crystal ball, nn... --Deiz 00:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy - spamadvertvanityblah. Deadsalmon 00:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Article has already been deleted. AfD can be removed. Sycthos^Talk 04:13, 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 merge and redirect. Done. Ifnord 14:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soundclick.com

Delete and merge with SoundClick. Kenneth Nishimoto 00:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge as per nominator. Sycthos^Talk 03:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, obviously. And redirect is useful, to avoid recreation if nothing else. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 08:27Z
• Merge and redirect is the obvious answer. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the

Thanks for the info. I would choose "SoundClick" as the article title since that is how the website (and presumably others) refers to use for itself. Contrast

amazon.com, whose official company name includes the ".com". I wouldn't choose "SoundClick, Inc", as both articles are about the website, only mentioning the company. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-22 20:28Z

• Merge and redirect. This doesn't need to be on AFD. -- Jake 05:24, 25 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. - Mike Rosoft 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ess (test page) (originally titles Ess)

• A page used by a newbie as something I don't see what it means. Please delete. (Note that the original title
  Ess is now just a re-direct to the good dis-ambiguation page ESS.) Georgia guy 00:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, possible speedy as Patent Nonsense -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as non-notable group (A7) (it's not quite nonsense). --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 00:33, 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. -Splash^talk 22:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WarioWare, Inc. Revolution

Pure speculation. There is no proof that this game exists, or is being planned, or is even being considered. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.
  WP:NOT a crystal ball. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete --
  話)|(郵便) 02:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fagstein 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with "speculated" int he first sentence? How could it be anything else. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I have to point out, though, that "proof" is not required. A good, verifiable source citation to, say, a mainstream print publication in which, say, a columnist speculates on the game and gives a clear indication that the game will be important when it materializes, would be enough. We need
  verifiability|verifiable, not "proof." It is sources that we verify, not facts. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Heh, well, that's what I meant. There are no sources for this game. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what dpbsmith said.--SarekOfVulcan 17:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom --TBC 18:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speculate! 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... Deleted! (per nom.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  WP:NOT a crystal ball. incog 19:02, 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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Laheney

Delete as a biography of a

• Delete --
  話)|(郵便) 02:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete as non-notable vanity bio. Tagged as such. Ifnord 03:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:23, 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 Merge with John Rogers and Jacobus van Meteren, then redirect to John Rogers. --Deathphoenix 13:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana of Antwerp

The wife of a very minor historical figure. Doesn't appear to have any individual notability. Delete. Gamaliel 00:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Merge relevant info into her husband's articles.Blnguyen 04:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to John Rogers and Jacobus van Meteren. Her ancillary notability seems to need noting in both spots. Marskell 09:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per above. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Per above. --StuffOfInterest 13:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per all. incog 01:29, 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 DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Munya 'David' Jumo

Not notable - played a little schools rugby. 2Ghits.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 00:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --
  話)|(郵便) 02:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable but I would like the join the James Bond Appreciation Society. JIP | Talk 09:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since he is apparently "notable" in my own town and I have still never heard of him. Possible student hoax. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy complete nonsense --Deiz 13:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom --TBC 18:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete quickly as a borderline speedy candidate. Hall Monitor 21:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with Hall Monitor. Punkmorten 00:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and all aricles about evil reclusive leprechauns.
  Grandmasterka 20:21, 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 No consensus to delete. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. Otis Ledbetter

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected

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 00:56, 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. Sycthos^Talk 05:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

User:Jason Gastrich, prolific creator of articles on alumni of that university all of whom have, despite vital importance to the world of education, managed to escape the notice of other editors. Oh, that's not quite true: one or two were apparently created by a sockpuppet of Gastrich's. Anyway, this article is about a pastor. And, er, that's about it. On the plus side, we do now know that he has eight grandchildren, so the bytes consumed were not entirely wasted. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 01:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

Comment: There is no need to pepper your nomination with personal attacks and sarcasm. Furthermore, I didn't create all of the LBU alumni entries. Many were created long before I even came to Wikipedia. --

Jason Gastrich 05:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

There are no personal attacks in that sentence. The word "many" is also misleading: most were created by you or a suspected sockpuppet. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least 5 out of the 11 alumni on the LBU page were not written by me. --

Jason Gastrich 10:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Non of the books appear to be from well-known publishers or have significant Amazon ranks. Dlyons493 Talk 01:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Very notable author and minister. --
  Jason Gastrich 01:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as non-notable vanity gastrich-cruft from a holder of a fake pHd from a diploma mill.Blnguyen 02:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Blnguyen. Diploma mills have tarnished the reputations of many. Sycthos^Talk 03:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley 03:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --King of All the Franks 03:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with some sort of tag, pov - disputed etc. Seems fairly notable from google 1470 hits -- Astrokey44|talk 05:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable, religious figure or no significance. - WarriorScribe 06:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I really don't understand the "diploma mill" criterion. Are we to delete articles on all people who do not have degrees from accredited universtities? Think of the many notable people that would include. This person seems notable enough, despite the POV against his schooling. Logophile 06:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's relevant because he claims to be an educator. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldnt that mean the article be edited to say that rather than being deleted? -- Astrokey44|talk 10:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. And I also don't see that he really claims to be an educator. The article says he has a Ph.D. in education but the claim is that he is an author and "pastor." It doesn't seem to depend on the Ph.D. for that. More importantly, I don't think it's our role to delete an article because we feel that his education is inferior for the position he claims to hold. Can't that be addressed by the article editors? Crunch 07:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, published author. Alphax ^τεχ 07:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For some values of author. One or two of his books make it into the top half million in Amazon's sales rank, but others fail to break the million mark. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Astrokey44 ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Not the most notable guy in the world, but this isn't a paper encyclopedia. If you have a problem with the claims of his being an educator, that's grounds to remove them from the article, not delete the whole thing. Rogue 9 10:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be personal vendetta by someone. --StuffOfInterest 12:30, 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 15:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Popular Minister.Tvaughn05 12:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JzG and Blngyuen --Deiz 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep For all the reasons above. Also because he's a real person, who has done many notable things (have any of you had books published?). It has an image, which is good. Where is this image going to slot in if this is deleted? This could well be a featured article someday. - 13:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini ^{lobster telephone}
• Keep. He's a real person; enough said. Kerobaros 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're a real person; where is your article? --Calton | Talk 14:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not enough said. Please review
    WP:BIO for criteria to decide whether someone living merits a wikipedia article. Note that "being a real person" is not there. --Pierremenard 09:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Strong Keep. Religious media personality and author. I'm also shocked by the sarcasm displayed here. -- JJay 13:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable religious figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs) 14:18, 20 January 2006. Sorry --Calton

• keep We can't delete people because books aren't that popular on amazon (this is just not relevant as a criteria) or the publishers aren't well known. bio can be verified and individual is arguably notable. Ginar 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. Itake 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, his books aren't self-published from the looks of it, including one book published by the seminary press Multnomah. --badlydrawnjeff 14:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination --kingboyk 14:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean he's not notable, and the sarcasm in the nom comes across as POV; his books make him notable, as Google shows. Walkerma 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if the article in its current state is fairly accurate, then he's got enough to warrant inclusion. The issues about his quality of education can be addressed in an NPOV manner in the article. Peyna 15:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this is a compact, well-written article with sources and links, and a man with enough books, whether one thinks it is notable or not. Gubbubu 22:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable. Justin Eiler 16:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So he's a pastor of a church. Who cares? He's not notable. Also, someone should go through all these keep votes and see which ones were made by new users... -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually all the ones I checked seem to be established users. Couldn't find a sockpuppet in the lot of 'em. --Spondoolicks 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As long as the article is NPOV. This is a factual biography of a published author. Wynler 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (added sig.)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Itake - Amazon10x 17:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep same as above. --Yonghokim 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep I see no reason to delete this article. Lerner 18:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom
  Grimm 18:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep guy just barely passes my notability bar, he's clearly published multiple books, he's been on television... just squeeks by imo.  ALKIVAR™ 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As with (US) college professors, being a church pastor doesn't get you in or out. This guy appears to be one of the more notable ones, quoted for example by the NZ Focus on the Family website (so some international coverage). Google hits are predominantly Christian sites, hey we don't discount articles on astronomers just because they appear mainly on astronomy sites, do we? Andrewa 20:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep--Hayson 21:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Guy. I am uncomfortable with the way this discussion is going, though. Also, Greatgavini, your signature is OBNOXIOUS.
  rodii 21:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Inclusion is based on notability, not a person's background.the1physicist 21:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Peyna and Alkivar. Perhaps this is a close call, but it does meet
  WP:BIO guidelines for inclusion. Hall Monitor 21:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep - just about passes the notability guidelines for me. --Spondoolicks 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of non-notable bios, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hall Monitor. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per FM. Jim62sch 02:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ATTENTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 "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_%28second_nomination%29

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]

Assuming that you are addressing those remarks to me, here is the "

some reason". - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep as an author. --Vizcarra 02:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JzG. And note to closing administrator, please evaluate carefully for sockpuppets/meatpuppets. MCB 02:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see anything in the article that implies notability. He is a pastor...he appeared as a guest on some radio shows...so what? --Pierremenard 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He seems to meet the notable author criteria. His affiliation with Focus on the Family is also somewhat notable. Whether or not we agree with his religious stand or tactics should be irrelevant, as should his Ph.D. from an unaccredited university. I don't think we're evaluating this on the quality of his education, but rather on his publishing and preaching which appears to pass the test. Crunch 07:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think his publishing passes the test? He gets a measly 10k hits in google. I don't see any circulation numbers for the books, so I don't see how you can say that he passes the test. --Pierremenard

Based on his contributions to Focus on the Family which is a very notable organization, like them or not. Cumulativel, the circ figures of books may squeek by, but it's his affiliation with Focus on the Family that put me over the edge on this guy. Crunch 13:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Do you think every person employed by Focus on the Family is notable? --Pierremenard 21:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. suggest admin verify legitimacy of all votes. Dbchip 07:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are many ways to try to rig an AfD. Heh heh heh. Fortunately, they're all based on the assumption that
    the ungodly can outthink the admins. Heh heh heh. Contributors can make the admins job a lot easier by following the procedures and policies, and by not being drawn into irrelevant debates on AfD pages, and a (significant) little easier by doing some of the work (e.g. flagging suspect sock puppet votes with links to their contribution histories is something anyone can do, not just an admin). But don't stress too much. We're human, but we're not quite as stupid as some would wish. Heh heh... Andrewa 10:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep: I don't know what's going on here exactly, and it sounds like a personal feud between two people started this whole thing, but the fact that this man is a published author of multiple books and has worked with Focus on the Family makes him at least somewhat notable. Someone's degree status can't be made into a criteria of notability, as was stated above. In any case, Wikipedia has all kinds of articles on fictional characters , Internet trends, etc. It would seem hypocritical to keep them and yet delete biographies of peole who couldn't prove their academic credentials valid. Evan Donovan 17:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is not a personal feud, and it's also not a vendetta against Christians, as some people would like to portray it. It is a conversation about what makes a person notable, and there is a serious issue about how, in such a highly polarized environment, to distinguish POV pushing and linkspam from honest, good-faith efforts to create encyclopedic articles. Vote-stacking, throwing around accusations of feuds and vendettas, and jibes about people's motives just serve to polarize things more. I think it's obvious that this many-headed hydra of an argument is not going to lead to an overall consensus here and now, but there's no reason to poison the well for future discussions.
  rodii 17:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep. He's notable enough for me. By the way, this sort of POV pushing, especially e-mailing people to "rally to your cause", is unacceptable. The idea here is that people can make rational, non-POV decisions on whether this guy is notable enough or not. Rodii has absolutely the right idea.
  Grandmasterka 20:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete as POV-pushing Gastrichcruft. Stifle 00:30, 22 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 04:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]

There are two reasons why your comment above is wrong. The first is, I am a Christian. Much as you might have been told that this is a vendetta against articles on Christians, that is the POV of one man - which brings me to my second point: Wiggins2 is a probable sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (and has been blocked as such). In my experience the number of genuinely notable people whose articles rely on padding like the number of grandchildren is very limited. I checked out the books, they have Amazon sales ranks in the hundreds of thousands or, in some cases millions, none of them are by major imprints. This is just another pastor, just like all the rest, I see nothing special about him at all. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggins2

Click the link and learn [9] Jim62sch 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Unnotable being promoted for people to buy books. Does not meet Wiki standards of notability, no sources, and as demonstrated with the vote stuffing, this is solely an article to promote a certain religious and a certain unaccredited diploma mill (Louisiana Baptist University). The vote stuffing is very serious and something should be done to protect this type of action. The stuffing throws the whole communal mechanism at Wikipedia into serious jeopardy. Arbustoo 02:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The individual clearly exists. Kurt Weber 15:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And? Arbustoo 00:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable enough to merit inclusion.--Alhutch 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Ashibaka tock 18:54, 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. -Splash^talk 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon systems

Advertisement. Probably doesn't meet WP:CORP but that's unverifiable as it doesn't release figures it is believed to be one of the largest full service EDI providers is asserted.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google provides no evidence of notoriety. Fagstein 04:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising per nom Dakota ~ ε 06:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 09:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I really did want to vote Keep because I like EDI (in a geeky kind of way) and they do look as if they are doing a valuable job, but in the end the tone of their advertorial (which forms a lot of the highest Google hits, of which there are in any case very few) really doesn't make the case. I love companies where you get to talk to a techie, but "we don't have a helpdesk" sounds a lot like "we don't have enough customers to need one". If anyone can verify a sizeable customer base (they claim "many", which is not quite the thing) then I'll change my vote. Provided the linspam goes from the section heading. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:21, 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 --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pack

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected

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
  ]

Director of a redlinked institution, editor of a redlinked magazine, graduate of an unaccredited university, reported to have broadcast to an audience of 250,000 (which is too small to sustain a programme on a British terrestrial network, and does not even indicate if it was the network or the programme's viewing figures - this could be garden-shed cable). One of a numebr of vastly important people whose existence had not been doucmented prior to the creation of a list of alumni for Louisiana Baptist University, an unaccredited colege with which the article's creator is associated. Article resorts to high school trivia. Oh, just read it, you'll see what I mean. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 01:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Very notable figure. --
  Jason Gastrich 01:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as non-notable vanity gastrich-cruft from a holder of a fake pHd from a diploma mill.Blnguyen 02:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley 03:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I should have nominated this one a few days ago with the others: a Google test reveals mostly stuff about a tech guy of the same name. A.J.A. 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. - WarriorScribe 06:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Marginally notable. Logophile 07:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehhhh. Like the nomination says, it has to resort to some pretty obscure stuff to even make him stand out at all. KrazyCaley 07:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per well-reasoned nom. This is almost borderline db-bio since nothing in the article asserts sufficient importance. Zunaid 08:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. I note this article's weaselling: "is read in 14" countries could easily mean a total of 14 people of different nationalities read it, etc.. Sliggy 13:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JzG and Blngyuen --Deiz 13:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some of these Gastrich articles I've voted to keep, but this one doesn't meet the WP:Bio criteria. Contrary to the nomination, I don't think the fact that he graduated from an unaccredited university matters for his notability. The problem is that he hasn't done enough to make him recognizable outside his circle. Publishing booklets isn't the same as publishing books. --Thunk 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nomination. --kingboyk 15:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Harvestdancer 17:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Per Thunk, however I lean towards inclusion. Wynler 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see little reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JzG. PJM 17:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NN
  Grimm 18:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete <300 Relevent Ghits MNewnham 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nominator, in line with Thunk's reasoning. Hall Monitor 21:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Spondoolicks 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep "with a listening audience of 250,000 people" I think that clearly qualifies as notablility.the1physicist 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Someone verify this claim. Does this make the stock-market-report guy on the 11.30pm news notable?Blnguyen 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Of course. If someone can prove the 250K figure is significantly inaccurate, let me know and I will reconsider my vote.the1physicist 14:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. --Pierremenard 05:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. I can't find anything on "
  Grandmasterka 21:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete with preference to merge. Un notable, but would be great if he's 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 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]

Very Stong Delete. Unnotable does not meet Wikipedia standards of notabilty for article. Arbustoo 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unless those TV channels were major ones. -
  Hahnchen 01:41, 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. -Splash^talk 22:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThunderCS

Delete. Not notable, as per WP:WEB; article confirms this by defining the series as "not-so popular". Grandfather Clock 01:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --
  話)|(郵便) 02:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Cute, but nn. Delete. Fagstein 05:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 06:04Z
• Delete
  vanispamcruftisement, starts with the name as a weblink and goes rapidly downhill from there. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per JzG. —
  FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK
  ) 17:43, Jan. 20, 2006
• Delete Not notable --TBC 18:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and JzG. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 02:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable webcomic. JIP | Talk 07:24, 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. This is split pretty evenly between keep/merge with almost no support for outright deletion. Keeping/merging can be thrashed out elsewhere. -Splash^talk 22:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Iceland

The article itself claims non-notablility by saying that Iceland has the world's lowest number of Muslims. Also, it doesn't really give any real content or even a dicdef. In comparison, even Islam in Iraq doesn't have an article. King of Hearts | (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unreferenced. Even if referenced, merge to Islam. Dlyons493 Talk 01:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into whatever article is appropriate for counts of Muslim population. Ashibaka tock 01:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Iceland has Muslims? Wow. Merge into Islam, that's an interesting tidbit, I always thought that Iceland was 100% homogenous in most cultural categories, I guess they're just at the high 90s.
  afist 01:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I read it's mostly like some construction workers and engineers from Turkey and Pakistan or the Mideast. I'm not sure they are even citizens. (I read an article about immigrants to Iceland during the Bobby Fischer deal. I did not create this article though)--T. Anthony 02:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per Ashibaka --Bletch 04:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  Muslims in Western Europe, as long as it's clear the numbers aren't from The Economist. Nateji77 05:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge as per Ashibaka -- Zen611 05:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Islam (it has a section on demographics). Fagstein 05:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it has changed from current version. If this was merged it would make any article it was merged to worse. I searched online but couldn't find any information except for anecdotal talkes from Muslims in Iceland. gren グレン ^? 06:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)I didn't use those sources because I feared they weren't scholarly at all... but, good enough to make me keep. gren グレン ^? 07:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure they are either, but the government report should be close enough. Oddly enough I still don't think this amounts to much and personally I'd say Merge to Religion in Iceland which I just created.--T. Anthony 07:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, I would agree with you but I don't think it can be merged anywhere without throwing off an article. Iceland really doesn't matter in terms of Islam. It'd be like merging some of the pissant towns in the U.S. to their counties. Some things are just irrelevant in the larger context. However, it is valuable in the sense that X religion in Y country is valuable. That's why I'm against merging. gren グレン ^? 09:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete merge per Ashibaka Dakota ~ ε 06:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Important for covering religion in Iceland. Merging it into a list will not serve that purpose. Choalbaton 07:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's a whole series of "Islam in ..." articles, and this one makes for an interesting complement to that, exactly because it's about a country where Islam is marginal. That's not making it "non-notable", in my view. Since comparable info for other countries is distributed over that series and not centralized in one article, there also seems to be no obvious place for a merge. The article is decently written and sourced. Lukas 08:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  perfect stub. Shortening and/or merging into a list would defeat the purpose of the article which is to expand on the info available. As mentioned, it is well-categorised so adding it to a list would be redundant as well as throwing away information that can only be presented in an article form. Merging it to some other article does not fit in with the intention of creating a series of "Islam in..." articles. Zunaid 09:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep. "The article itself claims... that Iceland has the world's lowest number of Muslims." doesnt that make it notable? BL kiss the lizard 09:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lukas and to counter systemic bias. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to use my powers for good instead of just silliness:) This article was just a sentence, and an inaccurate one at that, then I decided what the hey. Still how can this be justified as an article in its own right when there are so many more important "Islam in" articles to do? I think it'd make more sense to have a Religion in Iceland article and put this in. If you're worried it'd be lost until then, don't be. I did much of the work here and I can copy this to my talk page until a Religion in Iceland article is ready.--T. Anthony 11:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing one of my books on Iceland that could really fill in the stuff on Pietism and all. Oh well, maybe later.--T. Anthony 11:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep its been expanded greatly since the one sentence substub that was afd'd -- Astrokey44|talk 11:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. We have Islam in the United Kingdom and Islam in Germany. Whether Iceland has the lowest number of Muslims is inconsequential - it's still a notable topic. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Only because tradition seems to allow a "(religion) in (country)" for each notable grouping. Hmm, maybe someone should start setting up "Atheism in (country)" articles. --StuffOfInterest 13:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, although I can't imagine articles like
    Atheism in Saudi Arabia going very far. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• How about a merge into Religion in Iceland, a fine start on an article by User:T. Anthony, which links this article but doesn't have any islam-in-iceland content itself. I see the "(somereligion) in (somecountry)" articles as being subarticles of "Religion in (somecountry)" - that is, they're useful if there's a lot to say about somereligion in that country, but otherwise unnecessary. Also, wouldn't the Vatican City probably have fewer Muslims? CDC (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think so. I have a hunch Tuvalu also has less Muslims. They are listed as a nation of 11,468 people that's 98.4% Protestant and 1% Bahai. So if I did the math right they can't have more than 70 Muslims.--T. Anthony 13:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per Lukas, though the article does need to be heavily expanded --TBC 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge Arbustoo 04:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Religion in Iceland (and commendations to User:T. Anthony for his work on that article). Justin Eiler 14:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few history and other books on Iceland. The Reformation part is still pretty scant and I think a few other sections need improvement.--T. Anthony 01:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Religion in Iceland. Good work, T. Anthony. –Sommers ^(Talk) 21:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge and redirect to Religion in Iceland. Do NOT delete- information is perfectly good, very notable and should be kept. Do NOT merge into Islam- it's way too big ang general a topic to merge it into, and it would do both a disservice. -- Jake 05:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copied most of information in this, most of which was by me, to the Religion in Iceland article.(Also by me) Although I can cut that out if it survives. The point though is that it won't be lost either way.--T. Anthony 05:55, 25 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 18:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy DeYoung

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected

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 01:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:BLP. As it stands what we have here is: he's an evangelist. He evangelises. Here are some of the places he's evangelised. Did we mention he's an evangelist? Seriously, I can't understand what this is doing on the 'pedia. Oh, wait - he's an alumnus of... yes, you guessed it! Louisiana Baptist University. Creator and (save for the odd bot and various tags) pretty much sole editor is an anon with little other history. In the end I read this biography in some detail and still don't know what he's supposed to be notable for. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 01:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First rate spam IMMHO. I particularly liked "he facilitates Christians to see where they are in God’s timetable and encourage them to ready themselves for Christ’s imminent return". Moriori 01:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as vanity spam. I am seriously getting annoyed with Jason Gastrich's attempts to flood Wikipedia with articles of Christianity. I have nothing against Christianity, but he clearly knows that WP:VAIN takes priority. Yet, Jason relentlessly creates non-notable articles for his organization Wiki 4 Christ and refers others to influence the AfD votes, others who don't understand the entire situation. I suggest all of you take a good look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination) as well. Sycthos^Talk 02:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --
  話)|(郵便) 02:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nominator. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 02:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley 03:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn vanity diploma mill self awarded pHd. Blnguyen 04:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 05:16Z
• Keep. Notable enough. By the way, I do not know Jason Gastrich and have had no communication with him whatsoever. Neither am I directly involved with these people or their school, although I am vaguely familiar with some of them and with their work. Logophile 07:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is somewhat more notable than a lot of the people on the LBU list, but I think he falls short. Such relatively obscure figure need, I think, a little less reliance on clique-cruft, thought some of the figures on the list, as in the Chuck Missler deletion debate, do seem to show themselves worthy. KrazyCaley 07:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep has tv and radio shows, interviewed international leaders, 500 google hits. Though needs severe editing to get rid of POV phrases like "As a result of this God-given desire of his heart". -- Astrokey44|talk 11:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as vanity. Who's joining me in Wiki4Satan? --Deiz 12:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If for no other reason than to show how much collective life religous zealotry sucks out of the world. --StuffOfInterest 13:39, 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 20:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As much as I didn't want to vote this way, keep. He has a syndicated radio program that reaches a number of states [10], and has done his thing worldwide. That's fairly notable for me. --badlydrawnjeff 14:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; while some of the claims to notability might warrant inclusion (best-selling author), I can not verify them. Peyna 16:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with the statement that the article needs editing, to better reflect NPOV, but he should be represented in a comprehensive encyclopedia -- the TV show "Day of Discovery" is shown every week on our CBS affiliate station, with him as a major contributor.[11]1diot 18:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Once again, folks, the stuff in the article is almost entirely unverifiable. The claims there are extremely non-specific, and the little bit about
  Grandmasterka 21:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. There may be a kernel of verifiable info in there somewhere but as the article stands it's hard to find. Crunch 22:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete unnotable. Arbustoo 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cyde Weys 02:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs a clean up, but I think we can do it without deleting it... 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 04:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]
  • 'I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same', 'Two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. ' As somebody who has voted to delete most of the nominated articles, I take great offence at that sweeping and hugely incorrect generalisation. I vote delete on issues of vanity, non-NPOV, non notability and sockpuppeteering and will continue to do so. --kingboyk 13:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Exactly my point. This shouldn't be about religion, only about what's best for wikipedia... Doesn't anyone actually read what I've written? Sigh..... Spawn Man 02:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --kingboyk 13:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Delete. DeYoung is unnotable and there are no sources to demonstrate that he meets Wikipedia standards of notability. Arbustoo 00:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am the user that put this bio up in the first place. Dr. DeYoung is a notable speaker. He is the cohost on Day of Discovery, which is a nation-wide show. He is heard on over 1000 radio stations in North America. He is a published author, a radio talk-show host, a television cohost , and, yes, an evangelist. I am not a sock-puppet of anyone. My name is Chad Smith - I haven't added a lot of stuff, that's true, but I'm a real person. If you check the links in the article, you'll see that the info is on the up and up. If you think the links have been put up to support a fake article, check the web archive for them. Dr. DeYoung has a large number of listeners, his web site gets tens of thousands of visitors per month. Just because you haven't heard of him, doesn't mean he's not notable. There are plenty of notable people in fields that are outside my interests that deserve to be on Wikipedia. The same is true for each of us. Dr. DeYoung is in the Pre-Trib Study Group that Tim LaHaye started, as in the coauthor of the Left Behind series. Is Tim LaHaye in the Wikipedia? Yes. Granted, Tim LaHaye has more mainstream success, but Tim LaHaye thinks enough of Dr. DeYoung to include his notes in the Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible, in which Dr. DeYoung's is cited as a contributor, and has an entire article included. His article is on page 973 and is entitled "Israel Today" if you'd like to go to a bookstore and check it out, and the list of contributors in the front shows that this is the same Dr. Jimmy DeYoung of Shofar Communications that I am referring to in this article. It may be true that this article should be cleaned up. It was my first addition of an article, and only the 3rd or 4th one I've worked on. But please don't remove it. I don't even know who this Jason person is. I've gone through it a little bit and tired to clean it up, and make it more acceptable for Wikipedia. I'm sure more work can be done, but I wanted to at least include some of the verification sources to help keep it on the Wikipedia. Chad78.

• Delete. Vanity, non-NPOV, non notability. This reads like a press release, not an encyclopedia entry. 12.210.85.52 02:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (sorry, hadn't logged in yet.) Zen611 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being the co-host of a syndicated TV show (even a fringe one) is sufficient notability to my mind. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:48, 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 KEEP. To produce any other result would require discounting of raw votes on such a massive scale that I can't possibly countenance it. -Splash^talk 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gothard

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected

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 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This guy seems mainly notable because he is leader of the Institute in Basic Life Principles. Which, it turns out, is mainly notable because it's run by... well, you can see where this is headed. I would say merge to the IBLP article but I have a suspicion that both should be merged to the bitbucket. No, just for a change, this one was not created by Jason Gastrich, just one of a number of poeple with tenuous claims to notability from the Louisiana Baptist University alumni list. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 01:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge This guy, unfortunately, has a fair number of followers. I've heard there used to be some in my own church until they heard Gothard condemned beards and the pastor refused to shave. A.J.A. 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condemned beards? It's not just a more, like... "the clean-shaven appearance is nice" sort of thing? ^^ Weien 04:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he condemns beards EXCEPT for those who are adherents to the Mennonite faith. My dad had to ask if he could keep his mustache when we were in ATI. Dick Clark 15:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply

Deletion? Well, I think Bill Gothard is more the "founder" of IBLP than anything, though you're right about it being his foremost, um, "item of achievement," so to speak. But while the Institute in Basic Life Principles is unofficially aka the "Bill Gothard thing," it's something that has reached millions of people (over 2.5 million have attended IBLP's various Seminars alone) and is still an important thing to many on a daily basis. The Institute is relatively huge, all things considered. But even if the main thing about Gothard is IBLP and vice versa, does that by itself warrant deletion (yea, newbie here)? True that both articles do overlap significantly though, particularly in the many areas that stress the "highly controversial" aspects of Bill Gothard and IBLP.

On another topic, maybe both articles should just be left alive solely because of how much work various Wikipedians have put into them already? Or is there another reason for deletion that I'm missing? Thanks for any clarification-- Weien 04:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Blnguyen 04:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As noted above, this guy has a very large following, including quite a few people I personally know. I am not one of them, but we should base inclusion or deletion on the person's notability--not whether we like him or not. Logophile 07:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 50k google hits. I think rather than going on a
  crusade of afds against these articles, it would have been better to put disputed tags on them -- Astrokey44|talk 11:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with Institute in Basic Life Principles since they are essentially the same article, and have affected a significant number of peoples' lives. Sliggy 13:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Huge amount of material on this guy via Google. Someone going to a conference where he is a speaker is likely to read an article like this. Use it to give the whole story rather than just blanking it. --StuffOfInterest 13:42, 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 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, covered in Christianity Today, a notable magazine. --badlydrawnjeff 14:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, failing that Keep. This person seems rather more notable and the article a little more balanced than some of the others nominated. --kingboyk 15:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the following comment, I would suggest that any merger should be into this article, since Mr Gothard seems to be more notable than his Institute in Basic Life Principles. Alternatively, I'm quite happy for the article just to be kept if that's the concensus. --kingboyk 18:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problem with that. I can see that I have got this the wrong way round, it is indeed the organisation which is the sideline. I still don't see we need two articles, I think this will be a keep so I'll go for a merge at the end. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 00:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, anti-Merge, Since Gothard has caroused with Boris Yeltsin (wouldn't include this in the article as it is original research, but I saw him shake hands with Yeltsin on stage at the '92 ATIA conference in Knoxville when ATIA assumed responsibility for some public schools in Moscow), has personally led numerous seminars with >15k attendees, and has been instrumental in the publishing of numerous books, periodicals, and homeschool curricula. As someone who considers himself a "victim" of Gothard's legalism, I do have a POV on this (which I would be remiss in omitting). Nonetheless, I think Gothard's notability is virtually unquestionable. Dick Clark 15:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also add that the IBLP largely emerged to take advantage of the popularity generated by Gothard's "chalk talks" (where he speaks as he is drawing a landscape of some sort, and then, as a visual reinforcement of his conclusion to the talk, changes the lighting to reveal some sort of Christian imagery). IBLP's "Basic" seminars in later years usually featured a video of Gothard speaking if he was unavailable (which was more frequently the case as the Basic seminars in became more popular)Dick Clark 19:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, anti-Merge. Gothard is a very recognizable figure within Christian fundamentalist circles, and his influence is quite broad and controversial. (I would predict that a random poll would find more people recognize Bill Gothard by name than any of his related organizations.) You would not merge
  700 Club, since the person is as newsworthy as the organization, sometimes more so. Similar thing here, as Gothard has a broader influence than just IBLP.--Gandalf2000 20:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per everyone else. Hall Monitor 21:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create this entry (just like the nominator said). Besides your word, what makes Gothard non-notable? --

Jason Gastrich 07:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Arbustoo 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- notable within the fundamentalist Christian world as an activist for extreme right-wing values and as an accused cult leader. Admittedly a niche personality, but not an insignificant one. Haikupoet 04:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Seems notable enough. -- DS1953 ^talk 06:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Gothard is extremely notable for his seminars and teachings. He's been in the national news and is highly regarded in evangelical circles. --
  Jason Gastrich 07:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep. Gothard and the IBLP have had a major influence in Christian fundamentalist circles and beyond, since the 70s. While a merge would make things neater, we really need both articles just as Gandalf noted above. --DDerby-(talk) 16:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, much as would like to see more citations. This is notable enough.
  Grandmasterka 21:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, off you go. Stifle 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This guy has quite a web presence, news references, even a number of anti-Gothard campaigns, websites, etc. I don't support him or his ilk, but he is a considerable somebody in several circles. The fact that Jason Gastrich (or his ilk) promotes/advocates this article should have no bearing its appropriateness. If he (Gastrich) is abusing the system, I would support efforts to deal with his abuse. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Not just because I support him as a Christian, but also because he's well known.--
  ViolinGirl^♪ 13:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Why would a fan of John Piper support Bill Gothard? I don't understand. A.J.A. 00:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The guy is sure controversial, also among Christians, but that's doesn't make him not noteworthy, on the contrary. There has even a 380 page book been written about him: Veinot, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life which has 70 customer reviews at amazon.com and was worth an article for ChristianityToday. apologeticsindex.org gives him and his institute a whole page, rickross.com has an articles collection on him, So an article in Wikipedia is deserved but needs to be watched closely for NPOV. --Irmgard 00:15, 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 No consensus, so keep. Looking at the arguments without trying to perform a strict "vote count", I see that the arguments and consensus to keep or delete is roughly 50-50. The allegations of meatpuppetry and solicitation are serious, so I wouldn't be against a re-AfD, but only after taking a breather first. --Deathphoenix 14:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Missler

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected

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 01:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• In a way that emailing people outside Wikipedia was not? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bible teacher. And he wrote some books, published by a missionary press, one or two of which break the half million in Amazon's sales rank, but not by much it seems. In this article we find out that he turned to God after a business deal went tits-up, he held un-named "prominent positions" with some big firms and got a PhD from an unaccredited university (bet you can't guess which one). So now he combines a background in cryptanalysis with 30 years of Biblical teaching. Which would be really handy if the Bible weren't printed in clear... OK, he might be notable. It's possible that those "prominent positions" are indeed prominent. In which case some citations and actual details would not go amiss. Otherwise this is just a garden-variety minister with added resumé padding. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 01:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As Branch Chief of the Department of Guided Missiles would he have been responsible in any way for the 39 Scud missiles that Jimmy DeYoung weathered? God moves in mysterious ways! Dlyons493 Talk 01:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has 11 published books and a radio ministry, and if you delete this article it will soon be "resurrected", so to speak, by a Calvary Chapelite. Ruby 03:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep This one actually does seem notable, based on the wide variety of external links acknowleding the subject and his confirmed prolific publication. I still don't much like the trend, though. KrazyCaley 07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity self awarded pHd nn. Blnguyen 04:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Should a subject's education be the determining factor for an article's inclusion or deletion? I don't think so. This guy is fairly notable. I hate to say it, but I am detecting bias against ultraconservative Christians in these nominations for deletion. Logophile 07:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 11:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's more than one person nominating them, and actually the bias is against the use of wikipedia as a way of boosting the profile of Southern "fundamentalists" (who are not "conservative Christians", that would be the Catholics). You'll note that I have given a fairly extensive rationale above, I did take the trouble to go out and try to verify the significance of this person (and the others). It's a walled garden: these people are "notable" by reference to others (people and institutions) who are "notable" by reference back to them. They all seem to come with a full set of minor books published by fundamentalist Christian presses, studio photographs, and a resume which includes degrees from (and teaching in) unaccredited universities. It looks to me very much as if the 'pedia is being used to promote something. And there is some evidence to support that idea, see [12]. So I apologise for the interruption to your encyclopaeding pleasure, but I think it's time we reviewed the whole lot, pruned the dead wood and stamped out what looks a lot like an infestation of fundamentalist ground elder. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Roman Catholic, but I have friends in Real Life and on USENET who are in the Calvary Chapel, and this guy is as notable among them as

Bible Answer Man is ordained in the C.C. Your suggestion that we go on a rat hunt to root out leaders who happen to ascribe to the Five Fundamentals is disturbing to say the least. Ruby 12:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't recall saying any such thing. What I said was, we have an apparent invasion of cruft. A walled garden of people who are important only to each other. I absolutely do not discount (including in this nomination, explicitly) the possibility that some of them may be notable outside that community, on the other hand there is good evidence that several of them are not, and this is no different to

strong opinions. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 00:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

One of your objections is the low Amazon sales rank of Missler's books. Surely this method of determining notability only applies to recent books, since books written in, say, 1994, long before Amazon stated selling books, would only experience back-catalog sales on Amazon, introducing a bias into the test. Ruby 00:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that comment at the time. See this [13] book published in 1985 and still hovering round the 100,000 mark on Amazon. I read it as a set text at school shortly after it was published, I remember it still. That is one of my personal benchmarks for a notable book (of any sort). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Religious writer. -- JJay 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs cleanup to remove heavy POV and should probably be flagged as such. Saying someone is not notable only because they are notable within a Christian sect you don't agree with doesn't seem right. And this is coming from someone who thinks all religions are nuts. --StuffOfInterest 13:51, 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 21:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I dunno whether these nominations were researched outside of reading articles that might need cleanup. This guy is an internationally syndicated radio host [14]. --badlydrawnjeff 14:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Reviewing the syndication list (thanks badlydrawnjeff) shows that in fact the only place his radio shows are syndicated outside the USA is Australia, where he is broadcast on radio stations that cover areas with a population density of 1 person/square mile or less (Perth excepted). Indeed here in the US he isn't broadcast anywhere in my mountain time zone, and is probably on less than 30 stations nationwide. The rest of the article probably has the same puff factor. MNewnham 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did the US annex Canada again? He's on 42 US stations, for the record. Not a real valid comparison given the style of radio, but in 2004, Howard Stern was on 44 US stations. --badlydrawnjeff 20:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the thorough nomination. --kingboyk 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• ATTENTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 "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_%28second_nomination%29

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

• Strong Keep This is starting to get ridiculous. Chuck Missler is a household name in some circles. Also, fancruft isn't necessarily a bad thing.the1physicist 19:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, although it would need to have citations added and be expanded a bit. Let's see, on LBU alumni articles my score so far is: 3 weak keep, 2 delete.
  Grandmasterka 21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You just picked the wrong fundie this time. Ruby 00:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, JzG makes an excellent argument. Minimal notability within small, sectarian groups isn't enough to make that same person notable on a larger scale. = WarriorScribe 01:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Agree with JzG on this. --Censorwolf 01:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, Wikipedia is not a promotion tool for an unknown to sell books and videos. Arbustoo 02:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Missler is a keynote speaker at Christian Bible conferences, a very well known author, and a prominent prophecy scholar. Plus, he has a large ministry and a radio show. --
  Jason Gastrich 03:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - nothing in the article implies notability. --Pierremenard 13:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not because I have any opionions about this guy, but only because I just came upon some published material by him and consulted Wikipedia to find out who on earth he is. I would have been disappointed if there was no entry. Having said that, I think the POV elements in the article need removing, but keep the basic factual information. I only ended up at this page after trying to find out who this Missler is - and I'm sure I'm not the only person in the world who will turn to Wikipedia for unbiased information when they encounter something about this Missler guy. And as for the claim that he is only known in USA and Australia, I'm writing from England - these days, information doesn't stop at national boundaries. Euchiasmus 18:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just been reading the guidelines (I'm a relative newbie) and tried the Google test - Google gives 106000 pages for "chuck missler" in quotes - but I'd rather read an unbiased account about him in Wikipedia! Euchiasmus 18:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  WP:POINT Jim62sch 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep]] - This case is someone who is notable. I've come across this name on Usenet:talk.origins before. -Harvestdancer 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - discussion should be case-by-case. Charles Matthews 09:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete he published all but one book himself. Self-published is the same as not published as far as notability of authors go. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete FeloniousMonk 06:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Anyone who can generate this much controversy is worth keeping. Besides, I'm an anti-deletionist; as long as
  Cassie Newton has her own Wikipedia page, this guy may as well have one too. Lawrence King 15:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC) — P.S. I happen to find the meat-puppet solicitation quite offensive, and therefore I have no current plans to vote on the other deletions in this list. However, I am curious. Can someone explain why twelve similar pages were flagged for deletion all at once? I oppose meat-puppetry, but if there has been some sort of collusion between current active Wikipedians to coordinate their votes for deletion on several similar pages, I can understand why someone who put work into all those pages would feel that he is being ganged-up on. Lawrence King 15:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The reason they were nominated together was that
  unaccredited university with which he is associated. Some of these articles already existed, some were created by Gastrich or known or suspected sockpuppets of Gastrich (see the RfC above). A.J.A. went through them all and nominated those which, in his view, were not notable per WP criteria. I checked Gastrich's contribution history and found a couple more, including this one. If you read some of the comments above,. and the nomination, you will note that I tried to verify the claims of notability (e.g. "prominent" positions) but did not find any reliable sources for them. I also checked the Amazon entries and sales ranks for his books, and found them to be way off the radar. Another editor has tracked them through to their publisher and found that they are self-published, which means that as far as WP is concerned they don't count (unless they prove to have unique authority, like Robert Gunther's self-published history of early science in Oxford). Gastrich called in the meatpuppets. We also have on here the usual smattering of inclusionists (nothing wrong with that) and tactical deletionists (remove-all-Godcruft), which more or less balance out in most cases. Does that answer your question? Or have I misunderstood what you are asking? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes, this does answer my question. If I didn't have inclusionist leanings, I would probably have voted to delete most of these. As it was, I voted to include this one since it seems more serious, and ignored the others. Lawrence King 00:06, 26 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 This is in conclusion after looking at some of the behavior, and because of a 62% vote to delete (even without discounted votes). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morey

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected

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 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Submitted by an anon via Articles for Creation. Serious problems with NPOV, several dubious claims and rebuttals, but no actual indication of why the hell we should care who this guy is. The section arguing about the legitimacy of his claimed doctorates is far and away the most interesting part ofg the article,and that only to see just how POV it can get before someone steps in and speedies it as an attack. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 01:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable - Amazon won't even gift-wrap The Trinity: Evidence And Issues. Dlyons493 Talk 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. I haven't said lol in some time. Nonetheless, I find your criteria for inclusion quite amusing! --

Jason Gastrich 07:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Much more notable than the Ali Sina types. NPOVing is important though, sorry if my keep vote gives anyone more work. gren グレン ^? 02:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another one I probably should've nominated a few days ago. A.J.A. 03:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right . . . because you're the Christian who wants to get rid of Christian entries on Wikipedia; even obvious keepers like

Jason Gastrich 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

He wants to keep relevant and notable Christian entries. The debate is the relevance and notability of the subject, not whether or not the A.J.A. is attacking "christian articles". -Harvestdancer 17:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, if I were more concerned with promoting Christianity I would've voted to delete the Gothard article. A.J.A. 20:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, someone nominated Gothard for deletion. They must have been sniffing the same glue that the guy was sniffing who nominated

Jason Gastrich 07:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. We don't delete because an anon submitted an article, or because of POV problems. He certainly seems to be of interest to some people. Logophile 07:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What exactly is this guy notable for? NOTHING in the article seems like really encyclopedic info. Zunaid 09:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Notable figure with plenty of interesting, encyclopedic information that indicates he is notable. --
  Jason Gastrich 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep published author, referenced -- Astrokey44|talk 11:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable over-claiming preacher. Sliggy 13:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article still has a lot of POV, but some attempts are being made to offer balance and criticism. Seems to be part of a concerted campaign by a few editors to censor out a particular community. --StuffOfInterest 13:55, 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 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep, or perhaps merge to a larger Faith Defenders article. --badlydrawnjeff 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --kingboyk 15:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable charlatan, with self-awarded-and-styled diploma mill degrees, of no academic worthiness and none relevant to poltics/theology overlap. Blnguyen 04:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should part of this biography be blended into an article about California Biblical University and Seminary? Arbustoo 06:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Good job, this one actually has some citations. LBU "alumni": 4 "Weak Keep", 2 "Delete".
  Grandmasterka 21:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per JzG, Gastrichcruft. Stifle 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and I agree...the way we keep having to accommodate for people of questionable credentials (and questionable morals) is troublesome for Wikipedia. - WarriorScribe 01:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cyde Weys 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since it looks like this article is going to be deleted, I created an article about Morey's California Biblical University and Seminary Is this okay with everyone? Comments? Arbustoo 03:17, 22 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 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]
• Delete - The problem with this is the lack of information given about his notability. Who published his "works"? Self published? Vanity press? I mean, how can you receive a phd in Islamic Studies from the Louisiana Baptist University? -
  Hahnchen 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, article is extensively cited and recent edits seem to help move it towards
  WP:NPOV. His works may be specialized, but I don't think it sets a good precedent to delete published authors because of the fields they write in. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Merge with California Biblical University. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete FeloniousMonk 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC) More Gastrichcruft[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 by User:Alabamaboy —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 05:15Z

Unelfy

Dictionary definition of a neologism. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 01:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Article has already been deleted. AfD can be removed. Sycthos^Talk 02:29, 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. -Splash^talk 22:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lanfil Entertainment

Non-notable label. I refrained from speedying it because it did appear to assert notability. Google gave me nothing and it seems that an endeavor so new would be on the internet. Not a definitive test but, we do need evidence to the contrary. Remember to remove from

• Delete per nomination- it doesn't even say WHERE the label is based. KrazyCaley 03:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete warpozio 08:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --kingboyk 20:04, 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. -Splash^talk 22:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fry Mumia

No evidence of widespread usage presented, and in any case this can be dealt with in a single line in the Mumia article. Gamaliel 02:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources, no assertion of notability. -Will Beback 02:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Free Mumia Movement is a reasonably good article, but it should still probably be merged with Mumia Abu-Jamal. We handled the Stanley Williams freedom movement in that biography, and we should be careful about creating POV forks. -Will Beback 12:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unimportant neologism. Ashibaka tock 03:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as uncommon neologism. Sycthos^Talk 03:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep See http://www.thoseshirts.com/mumia.html that the phrase is in common use, and please allow the article to actually be written. Are you all the same person?
  Morton devonshire 03:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: No, we are not sockpuppets or sockpuppeteers because we have the same point of view. Fry Mumia fails a Google test with only 1,050 hits. ThoseShirts.com sells many shirts, but not all phrases or slogans are notable because the fact that a phrase or slogan is printed on apparel does not justify common use. Sycthos^Talk 03:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman argument -- didn't allege sockpuppetry based on similar point of view. Allegation is based on instantaneous syncophantic support on each other's talk pages, and the ganging-up without giving the article a chance to mature. Rather than delete it, edit it. That's the Wikipedia Way.

Morton devonshire 16:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, as per nom. --Bletch 04:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Photography by DECLAN MCCULLAGH says otherwise. He's a journalist and editor of news.com. Here's a book on Google: Executing Justice. Did anyone bother to check this out first? Kmac1036 05:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One guy writing it on a sign at a protest doesn't say much. The book you show has one sentence where it quotes someone with "Let Mumia fry!". I'm not convinced. Peyna 02:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Slight merge to Mumia article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 05:13Z
• Dicdef. Transwiki and delete. Fagstein 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --—Viriditas | Talk 05:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, only needs one line at the Mumia article -- Astrokey44|talk 11:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom and above. --StuffOfInterest 13:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism not in wide usage at all. Probably not even worthy of mention at
  Mumia. I can get a t-shirt with my name put up for sale at that site, that doesn't make me worthy of an article in Wikipedia. Peyna 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, no merging needed here except for a single sentence. Also, I'm annoyed that whenever people share opinions, Morton devonshire immediately assumes/accuses them of being the same person (see above, and [15]) and has a habit of martyrdom [16] on this topic. Also, re below: A picture of a slogan by a notable journalist (if he is) does not make the slogan notable. --Golbez 16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not newly coined as alleged -- see the McCullagh photo cited above.

• Merge and redirect.
  Free Mumia should probably be a redirect too. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 17:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, because the Cult of Mumia told me to. J/K. I think Mumia Abu-Jamal could use more coverage of the anti-Mumia movement. I just don't think an article on a T-shirt slogan is the proper place to put this coverage. Morton if you would like to improve Wikipedia's article on Mumia Abu-Jamal, feel free to edit it. Rhobite 17:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Slight merge and redirect - I think the phrase can be mentioned in passing under his detractors. Don't merge the picture and don't merge and make sure it's in passing. gren グレン ^? 17:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mention briefly in Mumia Abu-Jamal if desired and see whether the editors of the article think it's important enough, but my vote is a simple delete because the phrase itself is not yet notable. A proper "merge and delete" is way too much work of the closer. Whoever edited the article can independently add a mention in Mumia Abu-Jamal. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable slogan. Also admittedly POV fork: Tried to add a reference to the main article, but it was removed by the Mumia-protection-society.. Guettarda 17:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn slogan User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per various above.--SarekOfVulcan 17:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• D Fawcett5 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think there is room for an examination of these social issues. I can imagine an article that talked about public perception of injustice, popular movements to correct that percieved injustice (Free Angela!, for those of us who of a certain age), and the reaction to those movements. Okay, Fry Mumia isn't the title for that article. I'm not qualified to write such an article anyway; But let's leave open the possibility that this content, under another name, could be the stub of a good article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is such an article: Mumia Abu-Jamal Fagstein 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, and there's
      Lawrencia Bembenek, and Tom Dooley (song). There is a common element in all of these that could be made into a good article, by someone who knows more about social history than I do. The content at Fry Mumia could, under another title, be a contribution to that article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete. And mention on Mumia's article if evidence can be found supporting it's use being common. I've yet to see that. - Taxman ^Talk 19:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --kingboyk 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless article on a pointless subject. --BadSeed 00:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Mumia Abu-Jamal. I agree with the nominator — though I'm not sure why he took it to AfD in the first place — that a single sentence on "Fry Mumia" as a "humorous" response to "Free Mumia" would be enough. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think it would be fine to have more general info on the anti-Mumia movement, to the extent that there is one (I'm not knowledgeable on this point), in the main Mumia article. However, I haven't seen anything convincing me so far that this phrase in particular is more than the coinage of an individual, so at this point I wouldn't even see a need for the one-sentence merge some have suggested. Catsv 05:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have redirected the page to
  Morton devonshire 05:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Vote still remains delete; the new page has even less info than the previous one. Really, any of this can just be put into Mumia Abu-Jamal until it gets too large and requires its own article. That's typically how this is done here. --Golbez 16:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Free Mumia Movement and see what can be made of it. Keep Fry Mumia as a redirect. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Mumia Abu-Jamal already covers the Free Mumia Movement and covers it's opposite in detail. Free Mumia Movement and Fry Mumia are not needed until/unless the main Mumia article becomes too large to manage. Peyna 17:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with
  HroptR 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Regardless, it's still a POV fork created because the author's attempt to add information to the original article was removed by the Mumia-protection-society. (i.e., it was created because the author was unable to get consensus for his addition to the main page). POV forks are not allowed, as per policy. Guettarda 23:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ok, a "merge" and / or redirect would be sufficient, in the name of saving some server space. Kmac1036 23:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable slogan. Also admittedly POV fork: POV forks are not permitted. Look, I live in Philly and am intimately aware of this case and the furor and the angst, nonetheless, the article needs to go. Jim62sch 23:56, 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. -Splash^talk 22:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Populationx

1400 members in five years is pretty good, I guess. Not sure if it's Wikipedia-worthy. What say you, fellow wiki workers? - Lucky 6.9 02:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable forum. -Will Beback 02:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this place would be worthy if it provided a link. KrazyCaley 03:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  non-notable web forum. 1,400 members is not notable in my opinion, and populationx.com has no Alexa traffic data. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 05:10Z
• Delete NN Website, article was created by website owner, shameless advertising. --Lightdarkness 17:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because of the reasons stated above --TBC 18:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity advert. --
  e Ong 05:31, 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 about to be speedy deleted as an attack page, per User:Quarl. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iadipaoliphobia

Hoax/nonsense "condition" Drdisque 02:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Iadipaoligize (AfD discussion) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 05:08Z

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense.
  Google test returned no hits. Sycthos^Talk 02:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as attack on Adam Ladipaolo [17] -
  non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:39Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faces (software)

Speedy delete. Already deleted. Sleepyhead 11:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete It's a repost. dcandeto 11:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy, tagged as such. Removed confusing reposting of old AfD.
  type 13:43, 28 March 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. -Splash^talk 23:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alhazi Invasion

Delete. It's one of three stubs about an obscure game, entered four months ago by an unlogged user who have since not done any Wiki work. Thomas Blomberg 02:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of notabiltiy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:18Z
• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom --TBC 18:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --
  e Ong 05:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - it's a copyvio among other things. Renata 10:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A side note: Speaking as the ... author of the original text (on the Finnish website), I don't actually care about the copying thing, and in general I don't mind the text being around on Wiki. But yes, the game was pretty "obscure", not particularly special in its genre. --Methem 14:35, 25 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 I'm gonna speedy delete this nonsense. It's a blatant attack page. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy muney

• Delete - Complete Vanity. Notice in the history tab, the creator is "crazy muney" himself. Calicore 02:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as vanity and obvious advertising. The creator attempted to link the article onto MySpace. Sycthos^Talk 03:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely speedy delete as vanity and borderline patent nonsense. KrazyCaley 03:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as
  non-notable vanity biography, and attack page ("famous for having anal sex with his cousin"), and unverifiable (no Google hits for name). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:31Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PaulStintzi

Not notable autobiography. Delete or move to user page. --Dual Freq 02:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as vanity autobiography. Interesting content, but Wikipedia rules take priority. Sycthos^Talk 04:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and delete. --King of All the Franks 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as
  nn-bio}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:27Z
• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:30, 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. -Splash^talk 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruiner

Delete. It's one of three stubs about an obscure game, entered four months ago by an unlogged user who have since not done any Wiki work. Thomas Blomberg 02:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge without redirect to Alhazi Invasion if that is kept. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:17Z
• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all three. Renata 10:15, 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 DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drus

Delete. It's one of three stubs about an obscure game, entered four months ago by an unlogged user who have since not done any Wiki work. Thomas Blomberg 03:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as
  non-notable. The subject may in fact be someone's character in the game. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:15Z
• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all three. Renata 10:16, 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 NO CONSENSUS. This is one of those where it doens't really matter how I read it (or, horror, count the votes) there just isn't enough agreement here to produce a mandate for anythin from this debate, other than that the material should probably not stay as it is. I suppose it should probably be merged or something. -Splash^talk 23:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Prower

Only claim to notabliy is dying during the voygage of the Mayflower as a baby but still nn, no sources nither Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is not enough to write a full article on if he died that young. Mention on the list is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightindaman (talk • contribs)
• Keep. If research can be done into Baby Sol's parents, cause of death, this might yet become a worthy article. KrazyCaley 03:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  List_of_Mayflower_passengers_who_died_in_the_winter_of_1620_-_1621, and merge all the other stubs as well; and get rid of those dangerous redlinks!. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:13Z
• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  List of Mayflower passengers who died in the winter of 1620 - 1621 per Quarl. The subject is certainly notable enough for an article, but I'm worried that this one might never grow for lack of interest or information. As of right now, all the info — that he died as a child in 1620 December — is in the list already. ×Meegs 10:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this and all others on the list who don't have individual significance, because Wikipedia is not a memorial. Gazpacho 11:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Quarl. --

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus to delete. Ifnord 00:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuperOffice

Company with Eur30m turnover, wholly owned subsidiaries in several European countries, produces CRM software and is listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange. I undeleted this a few days ago after what I regarded as an inadequate AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperOffice. Apparently the feeling was that it didn't have enough google hits! Since there is some concern about my unusual action in undeleting I've decided to relist.