Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 18

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bucharest snobbery

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

• Strong keep if properly sourced and attributed. Alexander 007 17:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What remains will find a place elsewhere. There is the possibility that an article along these lines may return in the future. Alexander 007 08:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete completely nonsense article, unreferenced and POV. The whole article was made up out of frustration by a user well kown for his radical atitudes. Mihai -^talk 17:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not the type of article you speedily delete. The fact is, the snobbery of many Bucharestians is a well-known thing. It is an inter-cultural phenomenon to be documented, but presented in NPOV with sources. Alexander 007 17:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the idiocy of George W. Bush is a "well-known thing". I don't think an article named George W. Bush idiocy would last long, even though it may be "well documented, presented in NPOV and with sources". bogdan 17:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, I didn't think the article would bother you that much. I mean, you're not a snob! ;))))))))) ;)))))) --Candide, or Optimism 23:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The title can be changed: "Perceived Bucharest snobbery". Think of something, Candide. The George W. Bush analogy is imprecise, as that involves an individual. Straw-man. Alexander 007 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Perceived US Presidential idiocy" is better? It does not involved one individual, but all the US presidents. :-) bogdan 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I still think the analogy is improper, because we know who each individual U.S. president was; but here, it is a faceless, nameless mass---aside from some specific examples which may be brought forward. Alexander 007 18:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, this should be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, once the sources are brought forward, if not in this specific article. Maybe in Culture of Romania or something. Alexander 007 18:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

a title like Bad Wallachians who want Moldavians to suffer would be more accurate for the current content of the article Anonimu 18:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, screw this article. I think what remains can be discussed in Culture of Romania. The common perception of Bucharestian snobbery is an actual thing, and I don't like snobs from Bucharest, baby. Alexander 007 18:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete will never satisfy NPOV in any way. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Title is inherent POV. If anything can be documented/salvaged, put it in Bucharest. --King of All the Franks 18:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no sources - if there are verifiable reliable sources for it, a short mention might be reasonable in Bucharest. CDC (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV. No references. Anonimu 18:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete original research --Ghirla | talk 18:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A POV-pushing article, like the title signalises. The wider topic of the relationship between Bucuresti and the rest of Romania could be a part of the main Bucuresti article, if other users feel that it's so important to mention this. Anclation 19:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: wrong title etc. Some bits of history may be salvageable by a knowledgeable person. Pavel Vozenilek 21:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete irredeemably POV in concept and execution. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. I agree with Pavel Vozenilek that part of it might make an acceptable sentence or at most a paragraph in the Bucharest article. --kingboyk 22:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV. --Vlad 22:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's POV and I don't know how it could be fixed. --Thunk 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely strong keep!!! --Candide, or Optimism 23:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just pointing out that 'Candide, or Optimism' is the article's original author, User:Anittas. FeloniousMonk 02:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. FeloniousMonk 02:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, part of the whole Moldovan nonsense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete as per nominator; nonsense. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete. OR and POV fork. The topic, if any sources can be found for it, should be discussed in the Bucharest article. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - the article talks about a phenomenon that it very subjective. Such discussions - of folkrolic-like attitudes of certain people from certain cities, can never be verified by sources and don't really belong at Wikipedia because every person has a different point of view on the issue. Ronline ✉ 09:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, nonsense, POV fork, and the like. Stifle 17:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this WP:POINT Dalf | Talk 08:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or user-fy. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogivism

3 google hits, all from inside wikipedia. nn neologism, or at least that's what someone hopes it is. extreme quick delete. Timecop 00:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. neologism Incognito 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, bloggers make up new, meaningless words faster than they can punch them into Wikipedia. silsor 00:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not for something made up at school one day WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - made up word, per nom. -- Femmina 00:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Flapdragon 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Meaningless, made up word, not notable. Mike _{(T C)} 00:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. --Hosterweis 00:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. I don't know how this qualifies for speedy deletion, though. Sycthos^Talk 01:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. — Moe ε 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. - Dharmabum420 06:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 09:11Z
• Comment. I wonder if anyone uses the word Blogivism as they do blog since it does refer to blogging.. -- Eddie 10:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Timecop. Sarah Ewart 11:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and maybe ... just maybe ... in a few years this will turn into a notable neologism. But I don't think so. When I think of "blog" I practically already think of activism or advocacy anyway. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 17:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above Lvialviaquez 17:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pointless blogcruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for fairly obvious reasons. Cptchipjew 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What is this trash doing on wikipedia? Aigis 23:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, what an awful excuse for an article. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:14, Jan. 19, 2006
• Delete. Ugh. Hideous neologism, so glad it's not notable — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this utter trash. NONCENSORED Popeye 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Total failure. Blackyheartiez 22:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Buzzword Mish-Mash Viscid 06:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this trash term. *drew 05:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Non-notable JoJan 10:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sukato

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

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

.--Dakota ~ ε 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as non-notable person. Sycthos^Talk 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, non-notable. Will 02:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per above. — Moe ε 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 09:15Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologia Educational Ministries

Doesn't assert the significance of this business. Delete. Catamorphism 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as non-notable business (group of people). Also delete Jay Wile. Sycthos^Talk 01:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, non-notable, self-promoting. Will 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self-promoting. — Moe ε 03:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari 03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 09:15Z
• Delete, rubbish, basically vanity and nn-company. --Terence Ong 11:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per nom, Sycthos and Will. Mike _{(T C)} 20:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete possibly speedy as lacking context (which country? what subject areas?) and in any case almost certainly vanispamcruftisement Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising, non-notable unverifiable. Lotusduck 21:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above. Adds no value to Wikipedia whatsoever. --kingboyk 23:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete if possible as A1 no context and A7 group of people with no notability asserted. Delete otherwise as per JzG. Stifle 17:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Points of distributed sound

Zero relevant google hits (all mirrors of this wikipedia article, and from the article itself, this seems to be a neologism for "genre", except 100x gayer. Timecop 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nonsense -- Femmina 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn rubbish. Incognito 00:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NFT WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft. 24.255.122.105 00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mike _{(T C)} 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense now. -- Hosterweis 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nonsense. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as uncommon neologism. Sycthos^Talk 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. — Moe ε 03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari 03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 09:18Z
• Delete from mainspace per nominator. We have podcasting. -- Eddie 10:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. --Terence Ong 11:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Interactii 14:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Cptchipjew 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NONSENSICAL GARBAGE. Aigis 00:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, where do you find this shit? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:15, Jan. 19, 2006
• Delete this nonsense. *drew 05:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. howcheng {chat} 17:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Championship Wrestling, FCW Heavyweight Championship, FCW Tag Team Championship

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

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

• Speedy Delete as per nom. Mike _{(T C)} 00:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vanity business (group of people). Sycthos^Talk 01:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete As a pro wrestling genius, self proclaimed of course, I would know when a pro wrestling article is not notible at all. — Moe ε 03:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Not notable in the slightest (see also Future Championship Wrestling. Very likely a candidate for A7 (club) Speedy Delete Deiz 00:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As my above vote at AFD#Future Championship Wrestling. — Moe ε 03:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 09:23Z
• Delete per Quarl. --Terence Ong 11:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. JIP | Talk 18:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The very name cries "insigfnificant" doesn't it? No evidence of significance. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, nn Incognito 02:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete minor promotion. Essexmutant 12:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete i will turn its professional wrestling promotion link into an external link to its website where all its information can be found --- Paulley 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This and other real minor and badly written pro wrestling promotions can be sorted this way... maybe that is something that can be looked into doin at some point --- Paulley 15:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The_Ring_3

Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. Mike _{(T C)} 00:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; once verifiable information is available, the article can be recreated. Wikipedia doesn't need to "scoop" anyone. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 00:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Delete as per nom. Film not yet officially announced therefore it should be deleted as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Article serves no purpose. Will 02:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Moe ε 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Terence Ong 11:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --User:Wikiwkiwki333 16:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, true, but Dreamworks has announced the movie and limited info. If nothing else to set a place instead of just another red link!!!!! --J

  Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Mike _{(T C)} 20:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete since we don't even know yet whether it's a sequel or a prequel, which would seem to be very basic information. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 00:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this was discussed a lot of times. All upcoming movies should be kept.  Grue  17:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Is ther a policy outlining this, or is this your opinion? Mike _{(T C)} 04:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit curious about that myself. When you say "all upcoming movies", does that include movies for which there is no available information about cast, director, writers, plot, or anything else that an encyclopedia entry about a movie would normally include? I ask because that's what your vote appears to say. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with the main Ring article as a sentence within, revisit article once more information is available. Calwatch 06:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cast of RENT (film)

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

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

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

• Keep I see no problem with this article.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.93.31.96 (talk • contribs) .

• • Likely sock puppet of Robert Moore (no other contributions, same unknowing of signatures, etc.). Please only make your recommendation once. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The cast has no reason for its own article, unless they all were discovered to be extraterrestrials or something crazy like that (I'm not seeing that on the article, though). The song they put out might be mentionable under the Cast section in the main article. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect right to the correct section of the proper film article, however. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant, doesn't belong outside of the main Rent article. "Rent" isn't even spelled correctly, correct usage is not all capitalized. Will 02:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Although I think the article could just need a litle information. If any were to come up, I would keep it. — Moe ε 03:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No reason to be a separate article yet. Plus theres more info about the cast of rent on the Rent (film) article than there is here -- Astrokey44|talk 05:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This can be covered perfectly well at Rent (film). NoIdeaNick 07:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redundant. --Pierremenard 11:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redundant. Looks like a duplicate of Rent (film). --Terence Ong 11:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant, redirect to article for Rent B.ellis 21:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete merging this would probably make the parent article shorter, it has so little to say. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Merge with Rent (film) Nick Catalano (Talk) 07:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was sent to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Punkmorten 16:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vár

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

sorry if this is the wrong page to vfd it, or if I messed something up, I'm still a beginner at this :) Alensha 00:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Not a vote: you want to list this at Redirects for Deletion. Same process, different page :) --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• oops... thanks. I knew I won't get it right... :) Alensha 14:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Gothcore bands

The article on Gothcore was deleted; this is now an orphaned list. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 00:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, abandoned. Will 02:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The Gothcore article was deleted after this discussion, where it was agreed by almost unanimous consensus that the Gothcore genre was original research. The article proudly claimed minimal mainstream notability, was subject to heavy vandalism along the lines of the eternal "We're Goth / No you're not, you're posers" debate, and no WP:MUSIC-conforming bands (according to their websites and Wikipedia articles) claimed to belong to the "gothcore" 'genre', most promoting themselves as hardcore punk or metalcore. -- Saberwyn - 02:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Orphaned after deletion of Gothcore. — Moe ε 03:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gothcore discussion and outcome ×Meegs 07:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, orphaned after first deletion. --Terence Ong 13:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fortunately orphaned and logically should be deleted just as the Gothcore article was and for the very same reasons. :bloodofox: 19:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete more foocore nonsense. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this list can't be complete. Andrzej18 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 18:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wubbles

Nonsense and non-notable with only 2 members. Though this is cute. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete quickly. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and, if necessary, move to BJAODN as patent nonsense. Sycthos^Talk 02:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per above. — Moe ε 03:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Sycthos. --Terence Ong 13:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defunct Games

• What is this?? This looks to me like someone who is trying to promote a list of games that once existed but ceased to exist. Please delete if no one can turn it into a real article. Georgia guy 00:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Care to explain what that complaint means? "promote a list of games that once existed but ceased to exist" What? killerclaw
• It's a vanity website article. Delete. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 01:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• It's info about a website... I fail to see what the big deal is. Defunct Games isn't a small time website, it get's over a million hits a month and gets press passes for E3. I Feel the aarticle needs improvement, yes, but there is certainly no reason to throw out the idea of a page for the site. (unsigned comment by Killerclaw (talk · contribs)
• Delete. My site gets passes to E3 and 2 million hits a month and we don't meet WP:WEB either. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 01:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Likewise for my site. Advertise elsewhere, please. Delete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is useless at confirming any kind of notability, or really providing any information at all. At that, the Wikipedia isn't supposed to have an article on every individual sidewalk tile leading from my house to the nearest 7-11. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. Sycthos^Talk 02:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination. — Moe ε 03:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 13:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rather a nice site, but not notable enough. Delete. --Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. B.ellis 21:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Even if the world was in mortal danger and could only be saved by someone expert in some long-defunct game which was too crap to survive against the competition offered by Solitaire, I still wouldn't care enough to visit this website. Even if it has (just) managed to scrape inside the million mark on Alexa. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As above, and really, doesn't this stuff get covered to some degree in Abandonware? — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 01:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 18:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desirable Danny D

• Possible vanity, definitely nn. Probably Speedy Delete Deiz 01:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless it can establish notability in a substantial way. It's got under 300 Google results. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 36 results with the "very similar" results omitted --Deiz 02:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — Moe ε 03:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, nn-bio, likely to be vanity. --Terence Ong 13:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 18:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Happies

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

• Speedy delete, vanity and non-notable. Wikipedia is not MySpace. Will 02:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete vanity, nn --Deiz 02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — Moe ε 03:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for execrable prose even by the standards of vanity band pages: "Just as Pinocchio became a real boy, The Happies became a real band." BJAODN? Maybe. Daniel Case 06:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nn bio, probaly vanity. --Terence Ong 13:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Mildiez

a blog ran by 4 non-notable students. 190 unique google hits, mostly from blog indexes and other useless crap. Non-notable, fails WP:WEB. 600k+ alexa. Timecop 01:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:WEB. Incognito 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delele. Yet Another Blog. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above --Deiz 02:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity article. Sycthos^Talk 02:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. — Moe ε 03:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Deletez - per nom., non-notable, very narrow -- Femmina 08:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Terence Ong 13:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Deleto por la gente. Cptchipjew 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. Aigis 00:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Cnwb 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete indeed. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:15, Jan. 19, 2006
• Send straight to the Recycle Bin (or Trash if you're a Mac fruit) and empty it. NONCENSORED Popeye 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Hosterweis 04:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. *drew 05:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete starts with the name as a weblink and goes on inthe same vain. vanispamcruftisement. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delicetese

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

• Delete - I tried a number of different ways to find out anything about it through Google, with no luck. Only Google hits are references to this article, word-for-word, and one use on a foreign language page which I'm pretty sure is a misspelling of "delicatese". As a former Toronto resident it isn't familiar at all. - Dharmabum420 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Darn, I just edited this one today. No reason to keep it though. — Moe ε 03:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment My guess it that it's not a hoax. The official page of Deliceto [2] mentions a kind of pasta called pzzedd while Delicetese has "pzed - homemade pasta". --Cam 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

More evidence that they talk this way there: this page says that standard Italian domani "tomorrow" is cra in the variety of the Pugliese dialect spoken in the province of Foggia, where Deliceto is. Dopo domani " the day after tomorrow" is pscra. Compare the Delicetese's crεy and pskrεy (disclaimer: my knowledge of Italian is too low to put it-1 on my user page, but I know a few words and my Spanish helps). --Cam 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

fixed typo in my last comment. --Cam 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Deliceto. Could also be mentioned under Neapolitan language. --Cam 15:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN and delete as unverified junk. Stifle 17:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN unless some really thorough citations are added in, say, the next ten minutes. Otherwise this looks like a high quality hoax. Editor's sole contribution to the 'pedia, and that over two months ago. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a pretty good hoax. Extends to the official site for Deliceto.--Cam 15:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Bioethics Treaty Organisation

devoid of content, nn (no non-wikipedia google hits), ad-like Hirudo 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's congratulating someone to their posting of a position in a government. That's it. Not all too useful to anyone. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Also incorrectly spelled. Organization; not Organisation — Moe ε 03:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment actually Organisation is the English spelling, Organization is an American variation. Jcuk 11:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete probable vanity, content is only tangentially related to title, no motivation to fix either. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was article was speedy deleted as nn-band; closing the debate. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire Exit

Delete as NN band. Article written by a band member. Not listed on the recording studio website mentioned in the article. The band's website is a dead link. BillC 01:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC). Add: the band's logo should be considered for deletion also. BillC 02:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, vanity and non-notable. Will 02:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom — Moe ε 03:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Captain Jackson 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Incognito 05:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nn band. --Lightdarkness 17:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN / Vanity. Cnwb 00:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete {{nn-band}}. Stifle 17:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haverford Blog

non-notable personal/regional blog. claims 300,000 visitors during 23 month period. no alexa data. 80 unique googles. Wikipedia is not a web directory of crap. Timecop 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I wouldn't go as far as calling it crap, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it isn't crap either. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Incognito 02:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as badly made non-notable site. Sycthos^Talk 02:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notible — Moe ε 03:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. -- Femmina 08:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. WP:Civility please. --Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as crap/ nn content. Eusebeus 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nn, to the nominator don't call it crap (even though it kinda is). Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since I don't think we need this article to inform us that the Hverford blog discusses Haverford (I had guessed that much) Site claims to get less traffic than my personal vanity site, so you can colour me unimpressed. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable trash. Cptchipjew 22:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Blimey o riley. A URL in the external links section of the Haverford article would have been more than enough! --kingboyk 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete COMPLETE GARBAGE. Aigis 00:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wiki-hell is calling alright --kingboyk 00:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as CRAP. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:16, Jan. 19, 2006
• Delete. Allahu ackbar. NONCENSORED Popeye 01:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 05:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Wile

Speedy delete. This article is centered around a non-notable person. Also delete Apologia Educational Ministries. Sycthos^Talk 01:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete: As the primary author of this article, I can definitively state that Dr. Wile is quite notable inside the Christian homeschooling community. His textbooks are used by many families as their means of science instruction, and easily reaches an audience greater than 5,000 people (as per Wikipedia's "notoriety" policy). If his significance as an author is related to the number of textbooks he has published, there are currently ten; including three Advanced Placement courses. And lastly, I can assure you that this article is not autobiographical. :-) LAATi88 18:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears non-notable outside of his Apologia thingamabob. I don't like the idea of having every last company CEO or whatnot with their own article. However, that thingamabob is mildly notable inside of Christian whatchamacallit circles. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (Revised -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
• Delete -- article has a promotional tone and doesn't assert that Wile is notable even within Christian whatchamacallit circles. Catamorphism 01:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, non-notable, self-promoting, possibly autobiographical. Will 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily if possible, although the claim that he published a couple of textbooks may be notable. -- Saberwyn -02:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Per above. — Moe ε 03:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable biography. I think "taught at the University of Rochester" makes it unspeediable though. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 09:17Z
• Keep Certainly notable in certain homeschool circles. B.ellis 21:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not verifiable by a real outside source, not notable by the very same token. Vanity, advertising, being well known in a small sub-group of fundamentalism doesn't deserve a refference on the christian fundamentalism article, then it certainly doesn't deserve its own. Lotusduck 21:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google search on "Apologia Wile" gets 13,000 hits, which seems notable enough to me. --Thunk 23:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly notable, but verifiable through reliable sources? Lotusduck 02:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Eusebeus 23:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Also, more of a CV than a serious encyclopedia article. --kingboyk 23:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as having only the most tenuous claim to notability, and that unsupported by any verifiable figures. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Note the link to Apologia (and see that page's History). I have reverted that article back to a redirect, but it might be better as an AFD. --kingboyk 19:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boy Scout Uninstall Guideline

The concept this page talks about sounds sane to me, but there's no references and no hits whatsoever on google. Hirudo 01:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research or neologism or some combination of things. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails Google test miserably + neologism. Will 02:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Bachrach44 03:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism among all things. — Moe ε 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax or nosense.Blnguyen 04:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination, BS. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Society of the Eternal Rulers

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

• Delete. A mere 13 Google results, all likely placed by the person(s) who put this article up. 24.76.102.140 02:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. How'd you get 13 Google hits? I didn't even get any. -Will

• Eh? I simply did a search for "Society of the Eternal Rulers". Again, none of the results are useful. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk |

• Delete Despite how many Google hits this one got. :-) — Moe ε 03:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google results don't mean anything. This was a BBS door game that was sold in 1995. It's an actual product, and thus should remain in the wikipedia database. MetaFox 11:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a product that was sold. Google hits are irrelevant.--Roofus 16:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Old games with few fans don´t usually get enough results. We just need a little clean up by some one who had played it. Javier Jelovcan 17:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article was made by the creater of the game himself, Metafox. He also made an article about himself (Mickey McMurray) and his own company (Cyberdog_Castle). It seems all these articles are just self-promotion. S Sepp 22:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with posting articles about your own projects when all of the information is relevant? The rules of wikipedia state that creating a page about yourself and your projects are unorthodox, but that it is allowed when the information is relevant. I am a programmer, I started Cyberdog Castle, and I programmed and sold this game in 1995. As was said before, this is an actual product, so why should it be removed? MetaFox 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Just being an actual product is not sufficient reason for inclusion in wikipedia.S Sepp 23:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • All of the articles that I have posted about myself and my products are relevant to the other articles that I have posted about other people and their products. This product, for instance, ties into the Dreamcast articles that I have posted. None of my articles are about self-promotion, they're just adding in relevant wikilinks that tie into the other articles that I have written. MetaFox 23:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You did call it self-promotion yourself before you edited your own post. [3] S Sepp 23:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • And I edited because my original post was made quickly using your words, and didn't feel that it was self-promotion at all myself. This is all just pointless bickering now anyway. I already stated my point of view. MetaFox 23:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • You're right.S Sepp 23:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Who cares about popularity? It's an actual product, and if someone wants to write an article for it then it should be kept, no questions asked. --atf487 01:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This user's contributions page does not reflect this addition, which is a little funny. Not an indication of anything, but funny. 24.76.102.140 01:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think the fact that it exists is sufficient reason to include it in an encylopedia, without some indication of why it is notable. --Thunk 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, self-promo Eusebeus 23:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, real but non-notable product. There are literally millions of software "products", most of which have been discussed only in press releases and catalogs. It's a BBS door game; so what? Did it revolutionize BBSes or shape the evolution of game software? Did major media cover it widely? I'll change my vote to "Keep" if evidence of "yes" answers is provided. (Article doesn't even claim any notability, let alone demonstrate it.) Shareware almost never meets WP's inclusion criteria. Announced future releases of games with an old title never meet WP's inclusion criteria. Barno 23:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It did include some gameplay features that were not available in any product before it (as far as I know) - the ability to control the gameplay when the last boss was defeated, and thus directly influence the experience of players who were at a lower experience level than yourself. MetaFox 23:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as cruft. Most of the information in the article was directly copied from here. Even though the article was written by the owner of that company, SotER is not directly worthy of a Wikipedia mention. The game is non-notable and the article serves as advertising, especially since most of the text is copied from the company website. Sycthos^Talk 00:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This game also garners 0 results from Google Groups (USENET). The only person that has talked about this on the whole of the web, USENET, and probably the internet (from what can be gathered) is the creator. Every minor BBS server doesn't have its own article, nor does every minor product ever created by Man. The real reason for the article's creation is evidenced at its home page, which indicates that a "remake" is being created. 24.76.102.140 01:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per... erm... 24.76.102.140. --kingboyk 02:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think Mickey McMurray and Cyberdog Castle ought to be considered for deletion at the same time, or listed seperately. --kingboyk 02:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gamecruft. Stifle 17:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although I can't work out whether it is complete bollocks or just profoundly un-notable. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 17:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Catholic

Pointless article as it is perfectly clear what the two words indicate Delete. Arniep 02:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The many Irish Citizens don't have their own article. Even Catholics don't (it's a redirect). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. "A=A" dictdef. Will reconsider if expansion is made to break out from its current simplistic dictdef state -- Saberwyn - 03:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nice save -- Saberwyn
    • As I was a part of that, thanks. Although while working on it I started wondering if maybe this should just be a subsection of Irish diaspora. I added a bit about unique historical properties of Catholicism in Ireland itself to differentiate from that some, and there are other differences. So I guess not as "Irish Catholic" is in an odd sense an ethnicity as much as a religious term. I remember some Irish-American movie where the Dad smacked his kid for saying something about Catholicism and the kid said "But Dad you're an atheist" and in response the Dad said "Just because I stopped believing in God, doesn't mean I stopped being an Irish Catholic" or some such.--T. Anthony 08:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. — Moe ε 03:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Irish Catholics are a notable social group distinguished from other people of Irish descent in the US and other types of Catholics. Right now the article does not offer much more than a dictdef, but I'm sure it could be expanded to something worth keeping.--Bkwillwm 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with expand tag. Linked to by more than a hundred articles -- Astrokey44|talk 05:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bkwillwm and Astrokey. Logophile 06:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bkwillwm and Astrokey. Topic has lots of potential. Note, there's also well-developed articles for Irish American and Irish Australian, which overlap this group. ×Meegs 07:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bkwillwm and Astrokey. NoIdeaNick 07:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Bkwillwm and Astrokey. Where I'm from (Chicago), this is a frequently-used term. Zagalejo 15:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bkwillwm. Crunch 15:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bkwillwm and Astrokey. Outside of Ireland, "Irish Catholic" constitutes an important ethnic culture and identity, well worth an article, and this is a start. Smerdis of Tlön 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Bkwillwm B.ellis 21:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's a recognisable and well-known social group. Needs work, as above. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe a merge with an Irish culture page? Kerowyn 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Notable ethnicity. Cnwb 00:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I go to an Irish Catholic school in Australia and the term is widely used. --Rob McKay 01:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Definite keep per above. Possibly disambig to the newspaper of the same name. Stifle 17:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Would some of you quit deleting everything on Wikipedia, already. It's a decent article and there are millions of Irish Catholics around the world. The article bears relevance to many. Merge isn't bad but do not merge it either. It warrants its own article. Sonustar
• Merge and Redirect to Irish Diaspora. My family is of Irish Catholic stock, but I think the root of Irish Catholics as a group stems from the Diaspora. The Diaspora article is more comprehensive. I came to this article from the Tommy Hilfiger article, but I suspect in his case (along with many others) he could be linked to Irish American. I don't buy the arguments from Astrokey or BKwillwm. No offense. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 03:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as a copyvio. JIP | Talk 18:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web container implements web components

glossary def, nn concept, also possibly copyvio from the indicated source. Hirudo 02:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, obvious. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, direct copy from glossary. Added copyvio. Will 02:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Besides it's copyvio, it's useless. — Moe ε 03:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Span_Outsourcing

Delete. Pure advertising. King of Men 02:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as non-notable business (group of people), and obvious advertising. Sycthos^Talk 02:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. — Moe ε 03:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. Blnguyen 04:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. Mark K. Bilbo 18:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Spam Outsourcing. Then delete. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was article has been speedy deleted outside this process, closing the debate. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pure Metal Coders

nn demo group Hirudo 02:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete non-notable band demo group. Sycthos^Talk 02:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe a non-notable group of people qualifies for speedy deletion. Sycthos^Talk 03:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (vanity is not grounds for Speedy, last I checked). It's not a band unless you mean a band of coders, but hey, still pretty non-notable. I can't seem to even find any awards or 1st/2nd places at demo parties. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari 03:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily if possible as non-notable group of people. -- Saberwyn - 03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not Notable. — Moe ε 03:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete produced only demos, unless it can be cited that they actually recorded on a label B.ellis 21:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Unless I'm mistaken this is not about a band, but rather about a demo group as in Demo (computer programming) Hirudo 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as group of people with no notability asserted (CSD:A7) Stifle 17:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was honestly, WTF? Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copernicus' nationality

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

• Delete Looks like a copyvio. — Moe ε 03:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What looks like a "copyvio"? Some part or the whole article? --Matthead 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like an essay or thinkpiece.Blnguyen 04:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Nominated for deletion on 2 November 2005 [4]. Result: 3 keeps, 1 delete (nominator), 5 merges, closed as "no consensus". Material hasn't been merged, or even smerged. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Those who call for a Merge apparently expected others to do the work ... --Matthead 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Again, remeber what it was here in first palce. The Nicolaus Copernicus article was frequently subject of constant revert wars. Moving the whole nationality issue into subarticle was thought as a way to save the Nicolaus Copernicus article from revert wars, summarise the arguments for and against "Polish" or "german" instead of cluttering the page.

Comment This article is basically a nationalist argument, please keep arguments to talk pages. If a subject is not agreed upon amongst experts, an encyclopedia article is not the place to list every single piece of opposing evidence, you should just summarise the disagreement. Arniep 14:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Material needs to appear in the copernicus article. It makes no sense to have an article of this sort as a result of a compromise between warring factions on Copernicus. Instead, they need to reach a consensus. --Pierremenard 11:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I closed the original AfD as "no consensus". This time I vote delete. JIP | Talk 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is just a talk page thread given its own article; the only result of splitting it out is to give the various POV pushers even more space for their bickering. OK, that's a bit extreme; even so, the article as it stands is quite good enough. There is no problem saying he was born in the town of Thorn in what is now Poland but was then part of Prussia. Or something. It's mostly revisionism anyway. I recommend that they rename it Peachblossom Island and have done with it. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe "Peachblossom Island" would be as toponymic a settlement in the case of a native of Toruń (Thorn) as it was in the case that you linked. Better idea, though, than Solomon's compromise in 1 Kings 3:15-28. Barno 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea, Solomon's compromise. Please change the beginning of the Copernicus article to his well known latin name and declare him "Half Polish, half German" (or the other way around, in alpabetical order). Currently it says "Mikołaj Kopernik ... Polish" which is hardly a compromise.--Matthead 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I applaud your creative use of ellipses. The article currently says Mikołaj Kopernik ..., more commonly known by the Latin form Nicolaus Copernicus, was an... astronomer, mathematician... He is now usually described as being Polish. Which from my experience is accurate. Every single mention of him that I've come across in English, calls him a Polish astronomer. --BadSeed 11:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Now that calls to mind an interesting idea: I have at home Robert Gunther's reproduction of the papers of Robert Hooke, who would undoubtedly have referenced Copernicus. But since Hooke wrote predominantly in scholarly Latin that is probably not going to help a lot... - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge synopsis to a one-paragraph section in parent article (or even revise one sentence in the Biography section) and protect, or at least organize watchers to work against edit wars. Barno 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Retracted vote after consideration of Matthead's comment below. Theoretically the various language Wikipedias are supposed to be one thing in a choice of languages, not sources of substantially different content. If the "pl" and "de" wikipedias have documented a real controversy that extends beyond a couple of nutcases, and legitimate references can show its importance outside purely local talk and WP and mirrors, then the "en" version should have at least a bit of encyclopedic overview. I agree with nominator that such "controversies" are not generally WP material. Barno 02:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This issue seems to have a centuries-old history and it's very unlikely that Wikipedia can finally solve it in a way that makes everybody happy - or is everybody happy yet? Trying to ignore the problem by deleting the separate nationality article moves the battle back into the main article or its talk were it is even uglier. There's a separate article in Polish Wikipedia as well as in the German. The best solution is to make and keep the Copernicus article itself nice, neutral and calm, and to sort out the nationality article rather than erase it. This seems to be unacceptable for at least two persons, though - my attempt to put some structure to it was tagged utterly pointless and rewarded by this deletion tag. There are already examples in history where attempts for deletion were considered "the Final solution" ... --Matthead 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Uh-oh, does this trigger Godwin's Law? Barno 02:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I note Matthead is German, and the article is basically about whether Copernicus was German or Polish. Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, does not exist to pronounce what is correct and what is not. I don't think what nationality Copernicus is or was is something absolutely fundemental to why he is notable as a person, therefore there should not be a separate article on the subject. Arniep 10:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like a personal essay. There's been some revert wars on Nicolaus Copernicus about the topic. An NPOV account of the dispute could be written there (if anyone is feeling brave), but this stuff is too poor to be merged. --BadSeed 10:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, unless any non-Wikipedia, authoritative sources can be listed. Otherwise, it's just not verifiable. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. If it ends up being kept, it should be moved to Copernicus's nationality or Nationality of Copernicus, as the current title violates English convention for proper singular posessives ending in "s".[5] -Colin Kimbrell 21:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup using the information from German and Polish wikipedia to make this an article about the age-long debate that doesn't sound like it is a part of the debate. (Delete "Conclusion" section, for example). Kusma (討論) 15:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Nicolaus Copernicus. --Revolución (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. The final tally was 42 delete, 18 keep, 11 merge. I discounted 8 votes (7K/1D) for being either from newbies or not having real reasons (e.g., "it exists" -- my big toe exists but it doesn't deserve an article). Even if I had kept them, we'd have 43–25, or 63% delete. Also note that most merge votes were "merge or delete." This really should be a merge IMHO, which should satisfy the inclusionist bloc who don't want to see the content deleted. Really, we're talking 44Kb for a list of people? The vote stacking also really disturbs me. I noticed that a number of the people in the inclusionist bloc all voted on the same AfD discussions, all right in a row, which strongly implies they were here only because of their wikiphilosophy (still, I didn't discount their votes). howcheng {chat} 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Louisiana Baptist University people

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

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

• Delete per nom. A.J.A. 02:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This list is like other university lists [6] on Wikipedia. Helpful and informative. --Jason Gastrich 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

See: II - Accrediatation discussion

• Delete per nomination. I thought we had categories for this list junk anyways (though I'd support this being deleted from categories as well). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. List of notable people connected with a wonderful school.--Hvnhlpr 03:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

note: This is Heaven Helpers first edit in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Louisiana Baptist University. This article is vanity on its own, but the main article has an incomplete section on alumini. However, many sections, such as "General alumni," will be removed, as Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory ("indiscriminate collection of information"). Sycthos^Talk 03:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if merging is not possible. Sycthos^Talk 02:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable school. But may I suggest renaming it? — Moe ε 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The school itself already has an article. A.J.A. 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelvant. As it has been shown, 60 universities have entries and a list of people. --Jason Gastrich 22:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant to his vote, which had a rational about the notability of the school but suggested renaming it, which strongly suggests he thought he was voting on whether there should be any article about it at all. The other lists aren't relevant because if we take out the deadwood (i.e., the red links and the links that are going to go red and the people only marginally connected to the mill), there's hardly anything left. Plenty of schools have a lot of notable graduates. The mill you're wasting your time at? Not so much. A.J.A. 22:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as per Scythos *Delete Dlyons493 Talk 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Non-notable school, school has an entry at Wikipedia, superficially padded list of persons, mostly of little or no notability. Not helpful or informative, a space waster - WarriorScribe 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Are these types of lists even used for accredited universities? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unnotable people. If there are any notables put them on the university page. David D. (Talk) 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they're used for many universities, institutes, and colleges.[7] --Jason Gastrich 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're right. That is a very impressive list of 60 universities. Is there are seperate category for non-accredited universities? Or will we have to create a new category for this list? David D. (Talk) 05:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I know. It's a good thing and par for the course on Wikipedia. There isn't an unaccredited category specifically for lists right now. You can create one if you like. --Jason Gastrich 05:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is a great list. LBU is a great university with many impressive grads.--God's child 06:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

See: III - User has nine edits

• keep please this list is informative and too big to put on the main article Yuckfoo 06:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment An attempt at vote-stacking. A.J.A. 06:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Louisiana Baptist University. Logophile 07:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is probably libellous to claim without clear references that people are "graduates" of a diploma mill. Whoever can be verified as actually themselves claiming a degree from LBU can be mentioned in the main article. u p p l a n d 08:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline libellous per Tups, borderline listcruft, borderline lack of notability, and Gastrich's vote recruiting tips my teetering vote over all three lines. --Malthusian (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep could do with renaming "List of notable alumni" or something like that. Jcuk 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article as nn list of mostly nn people. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I would not oppose merging only the more notable names who already have WP articles into the main LBU article. Zunaid 13:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep* It is our constitutual right to be able to speak on any subject that we choose and not to discriminate on basis of religion--Michaelwmoss 17:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

See: IV - Rights

• Strong Delete - mostly non-notable, a non-notable connection, and what few parts are worthy can be included on the LBU page. Constitutional rights? Gimme a break, this isn't a court. -Harvestdancer 17:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge if not delete. Mark K. Bilbo 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The list of people isn't that long, and it appears like the more notable of them are already included in the LBU page anyway. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 19:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This article was created by Jason Gastrich to promote his school as a mainstream institution. This is only one of around 10 articles he created promoting his religion/degree/school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.196 (talk • contribs) .
  • Please login and sign your comments with four tildes. If you don't have a user account, register for one. Anonymous votes aren't really counted in AfDs. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 20:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with main article. Grimm 20:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment More vote-stacking: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. A.J.A. 22:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete And now I see the wisdom in keeping List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Yes, froends, this is a list of people who are graduates from an unaccredited institution of higher learning, and yes that does mean exactly what you think it does: a diploma mill. This is more Gastrichcruft, burn it now. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into article on the "university", which already has a list of notable alumni. Not enough content here to merit a separate article. --Thunk 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 23:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no need to merge non-notable people to parent article. JzG is right: that list of unaccrediteds is a handy place to find junk and too-fanatic-to-meet-standards when there's a question about an unknown institution supposedly of higher learning. Barno 00:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there is already a (short) section for notable grads in the school article. We don't need another list. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Vote stacking accusation made here. Sycthos^Talk 00:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing vote stacking or wrong with encouraging people to vote. --Jason Gastrich 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Funny, isn't it, that when an AfD concerns an article of yours that people never seen before come crawling out of the woodwork to vote with you? Mark K. Bilbo 14:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete categorize if you have to WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity piece by Gastrich and co-agents of LBU diploma mill nonsense.Blnguyen 01:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --kingboyk 03:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Guettarda 03:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--nixie 04:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete— Dunc|☺ 09:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a list of interest to very few people, apparently created just for the sake of having a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 17:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you know it's of interest to very few people? There are 59 lists like it. Do you happen to know how many of those are important to how many different people? --Jason Gastrich 18:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the 59 others are accredited and the schools are actually rather significant on their own. Harvestdancer 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep(strong) First of all, the nom uses very subjective language. Diploma mill is a pretty crappy spin to put on things. Second, there may be someone who wants to do research on the school and its associates, why not have a page? Brokenfrog 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a page for the school itself, which lists notable alums. This list is redundant to that page. -Harvestdancer 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (strong) I don't see how this is necessary with the inclusion of notables on LBU's page. The discussion seems to be mostly reasonable peppered other than the personal attacks from the author. I would say that there would be vote stacking. I received notice of this from a email list headed by Jason Gastrich himself. If I could get a place to host I would be happy to post said email. To quote from that message:

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

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

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

See: V - Paranoia

• Strong Keep university-related topics are notable. Cynical 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Care to back that up? This isn't a university. It's an unaccredited school that happens to use the word university in its name. --Cyde Weys 22:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any actual notables into the university article, otherwise delete. Solicited a favourable vote from me via email because I am listed as an inclusionist. I would like to point out that the inclusionist motto is "with truth preserved."...not "with vanity preserved." Well established, accredited institutions usually do warrant a seperate list of notable graduates...Harvard, for example, is very likely to have a huge list of notable graduates which would be too long for the main article...but LBU's list (even if they are all truly notable) is short enough to fit fine into the main article. If this article is kept, then I vote to have an undeletable list of all people who have read the Invisible Pink Unicorn article. bcatt 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any actual notables into the university article, otherwise delete. --Devein 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with original article. This AfD appears to be in danger of going off-topic. This is suppose to be about whether or not the article is worth keeping, not about whether or not LBU is a "degree mill" or not, or the merits of accreditation, or other stuff this AfD is bringing up. Let's get back on topic, does this article deserve to exist? I say yes, why not, otherwise, we should begin removing other school's lists. It could probably be paired down to be just notable alumni, but it still deserves to exist.--Azathar 23:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The quoted phrase from your post above, "or the merits of accreditation," is incorrect. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of vanity. I agree with the merge, but Louisiana Baptist University is an unaccredited institution of higher learning and is not notable enough to deserve its own page for alumini. The only thing more ridiculous is that there are vanity biographies made of these non-notable people featured on the alumini. Finally, Jason Gastrich is making personal attacks and encouraging people who obviously do not know the entire situation to blindly support him via email. I am not criticizing Christianity, but this method of vote stacking is inexplicably ludicrous. I am trying very hard to restraining myself from making stronger comments, but that may not be possible in the near future. Sycthos^Talk 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Upon reviewing the Wiki 4 Christ site, and its objectives, I have several comments to make. It is fine that you are creating this organization, but Wikipedia's vanity rules take priority over everything. Lists of alumini on unaccredited universities and biographies on non-notable Christian missionaries are unacceptable. If you have a dispute, create your own wiki site. Sycthos^Talk 02:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Thanks for your comment. However, I disagree with you and I believe that some unaccredited universities deserve lists of people associated with them. For instance, Bob Jones University is unaccredited. Why shouldn't they have a list? The fact remains that there are many notable alumni and a list is a good thing to have, so they can be organized and, well, listed. The fact that they haven't sought government accreditation means little; especially in light of its alumni and academic requirements. --Jason Gastrich 02:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, BJU is accredited. A.J.A. 02:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich you made two errors: LBU did apply for accreditation and was denied. And BJU does have accreditation from Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), Accreditation Commission, see [15].

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.196 (talk • contribs) .

I don't see anything about them applying and being denied. Also, this link doesn't tell me that they are accredited, now. I've read that they have applied for TRACS accreditation and were waiting on their decision. --Jason Gastrich 02:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The LBU 1998 request by TRACS (the people who approved BJU) was denied-- this was explained once to you already on the LBU talk page. A discussion about the inquiry with Steve Levicoff[16] and the denial of the approval in 2000[17].

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.196 (talk • contribs) .

The search isn't working on my computer, but this article states that Bob Jones University has recieved accreditation. Sycthos^Talk 02:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

To be exact, they have candidacy status [18], which means they're in basic compliance with the standards. It's apparently a kind of probationary accreditation. IIRC, even before they were accredited BJU was considered to have one of the top accountancy programs in the country, which to my mind is enough to overcome the presumption that an unaccredited school is a mill. (Still wouldn't want to go there.) A.J.A. 03:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, we could first remove anything from this list that wasn't WP:Verifiable from Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That would be the barest of minumums, and is absolutley beyond negotiation. We could then take the little (if anything) that is left and merge it into its parent article, probably deleting the redirect as useless. We could then have a bun-fight on the article's talk page about what is meaningful to keep, ending up with like four names. Or we could simply delete this now, as its only purpose is to provide a list of articles that are AfD candidates as they don't meet WP:BIO. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: According to a google test, Bob Jones University has 1,010,000 results, while Louisiana Baptist University only has 782. Bob Jones University is clearly more notable than Louisiana Baptist University, so that is a different case. Sycthos^Talk 02:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Google isn't the only indicator of notablity. --Jason Gastrich 02:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Very true. However, from a Yahoo! test, Louisiana Baptist University scored 1,570 hits while Bob Jones University scored 772,000. The margin of difference is simply too large to consider otherwise. From an Alexa test, Bob Jones University has a ranking of 82,173, while Louisiana Baptist University dosen't even have a ranking. Sycthos^Talk 02:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As others have stated, these seems partially redundant with the notables list, and the author's arguments do not persuade me of this list's worthiness (or indeed, the worthiness of many of the list's items) KrazyCaley 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, if not delete. I may be an inclusionist, but I'm not stupid. —Nightstallion (?) 06:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any actual notables into the university article, otherwise delete. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Louisiana Baptist University. Alphax ^τεχ 07:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Louisiana Baptist University. Yes, Gastrich, I'm an inclusionist. I also have absolutely no problem with alerting people to ongoing votes, and think that people who vote against simply because of that are being incredibly dense, but that doesn't mean I don't weigh the article's merits once alerted. I'm not going to pass judgment on whether LSU is a diploma mill or not, but don't think I'm just a tool to use for voting keep on every article on the deletion listings. I'm going to give each of the articles you sent to me careful consideration, and will vote accordingly. If you were expecting me to charge in and vote keep without reading anything, you don't know me very well. Rogue 9 10:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Useful content, but doesn't need to stand in an article of its own. --StuffOfInterest 12:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep We can't just throw out something related to something intellectual (in this case, a university) while other articles related to things like sport are kept. It is not of stub length, and is useful and informative. This could save someone a lot of searching. - 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini lobster telephone
• Keep. Useful content is useful content; keep it around. Kerobaros 13:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)kerobaros
• Strong Keep This is a perfectly viable encyclopedia article on a public institution that could very well be the subject of someone's research in the future. In such an event, wikipedia would come in handy. That is what wikipedia is for. I haven't heard a single good argument to why this should be deleted. There is no wikipedia article on "Diplomamill". User:Itake|Itake]] 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a discussion about the article on Louisiana Baptist University (which is not a public institution). That article has not been nominated for deletion. This is only about the list called List of Louisiana Baptist University people. BTW, there is an article on diploma mill. u p p l a n d 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• keeep I think it can be notable and it is interesting. Gubbubu 22:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

abstain I don't know enough about this here yet so I'm abstaining for now. But it seems to me that alot of these articles here, the bio's I mean, pass into the notable stage and are verifiable. I'm not a christian by a long shot and I have issues with fundamentalism in a big way but that doesn't mean these folks don't deserve to be here. The criteria for me here is, "is this article useful as a way to initiate research" and clearly it is. If I was interested in, say, the history of baptist thinking or wanted to make a wash list of baptist notable, I could use this as a start. A PERFECT WIKI ARTICLE in my opion.

And just to be above board here, I was asked to come vote here by the author. This is not vote stacking or Ballot stuffing , it is simply campaigning. Those of you opposed to this author or these entries will just have to trust that the people who are brought in can make up their own minds regardless of how they got here. Personally, I'm questioning the objectivity and neutrality of both sides here. This is an encyclopedia without page limits and in order to avoid charges of bias especially in these controversial areas, we should always err on the side of inclusiveness.Ginar 14:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

These articles aren't controversial in any way. The self-proclaimed "deletecrew" that haunts this site makes topics like this controversial by attacking them because of their own POV views.Itake 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Question Comment - How many people are here because Gastrich emailed all the inclusionists on the vain hope that you automatically vote to keep articles? An argument for delete can be made that should be acceptable to inclusionists - put the valuable intellectual content where it belongs, in the LBU article, and no content is lost. I know that there are several such inclusionists here, although since Gastrich used email instead of talk pages, there's no Wiki trail of proof like there is for his wikichrist crowd. -Harvestdancer 15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - If this page gets deleted, another obvious candidate for deletion is List of LBU people which is only a redirect to this page. [19] -Harvestdancer 15:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you atleast try and hide your own POV like all the others do? Seriously, I'm asking again. Give me a good argument why this should be deleted. Itake 16:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I already did. Unlike Harvard, LBU is not as significant an institution of higher learning. Some schools warrant their own page of notable alumni simply because of the size of such a list. This page, on the other hand, can easily be included in the LBU article without any loss of content and therefore, by mergist principles, does not warrant a separate page. Will you try to hide your POV, like you say everyone but the two of us tries to do? -Harvestdancer 16:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Justin Eiler 16:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I do hide my own POV. And comparing the LBU to Harvard is nothing short of silly. They aren't even in the same league. The LBU is noteworthy in its own way. Its an american institution, which is why it listed on the english wikipedia. On the Swedish wikipedia, alot of small schools have their own entries. None complains. So no, thats not a good reason. There are no other articles with these names, so there's no name conflict. There's no nothing, except silly notions about the standard of education on the school. This guy is by all accounts an important person, so he deserves a page. Itake 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

See: XII - Email

• Keep, solely based upon the merits of the article. The actions being taken here on either side are divisive and very, very troublesome. Silensor 16:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

See: XIII - Bias?

• Keep, This information is valuable and should be included. Salva veritate Lerner 17:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Given it's current state, it should be weaned and merged into the main article under the Notable Alumni section. Wynler 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I see no reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. List of financial transactions, in effect, and not verifiable by reasonable means short of people's receipts. Charles Matthews 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep same as above. --Yonghokim 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep silensor says clearly what I was thinking... article establishes its reason for existing. It does appear it may have problems keeping focuses however.  ALKIVAR™ 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What a waste of time. The vote to delete the parent article was lost. (The first vote seems to have been abandonned rather than closed - pity, needs cleaning up when the dust settles.) The list of delete arguments above includes some valid ones but also many ad hominem and other irrelevancies. (Let me pre-empt two others by saying that I am a Christian, and I have been emailed on this. See user:Andrewa/creed.) For example, if we were to delete every article on a university contributed by any of its alumni, we'd lose a lot of good content. A brief mention of lobbying and sock-puppet allegations is appropriate, but alleged vested interests are at best borderline arguments IMO. What should count is user contribution history, and the article itself. Andrewa 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theologist101 (talk • contribs) .

User has a total of 14 edits. Arbustoo 06:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. --Hayson 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (The previous unsigned message was not from me)
• Keep Regardless of people's opinion of the information, it is still good information. I actually found the article quite useful.the1physicist 21:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, since most of the people listed aren't notable in themselves, but if Mike Randall et al. are kept, then my vote can be for a weak keep instead. Including it (or not) should depend on the results of the related AfD's. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong DELETE; -- why not have an article for every unknown fringe person who graduated from South Succotash High School in an article. This is just ridiculous self-promotion. Jim62sch 02:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Please refrain from personal attacks. Disagree with the idea, not the person. I am not using this statement to attack a specific side of the debate, as both sides are violating this policy. Also, stay cool when the editing gets hot. This is the internet, which means that everybody should have the capability to give their points of view without directly offending others. Sycthos^Talk 03:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Finally, please sign all of your posts with four tildes, ~~~~ to ensure that others know who posted the comment. Sycthos^Talk 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article, non-notables list takes up room. Arbustoo 03:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Riiiiiiight. --Jason Gastrich 07:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comments to those that oppose keeping this and your emails to those who will likely side with your views really shows your character. You are not right and thus only way you get people to support you is to a play the religious martyr role--- which many people don't buy. Arbustoo 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A few of these people are editors, and authors, and notable people. They belong on an encyclopedia. Эйрон Кинни 18:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Which few are you talking about? One option is to merge them into the Louisiana Baptist University page. David D. (Talk) 18:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually they already appear on the Louisiana Baptist University page. I don't really see why people are talking about keeping the names page (they are already on the article page) or merge. Arbustoo 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• strong abstain. deep breaths everyone! Ginar 18:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't see why people are talking about keeping the names page? That's what this nomination is about! Furthermore, there are 68 other "names pages"[20] like it for various universities. They haven't been merged with their university. --Jason Gastrich 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How many times are you going to post you abstain. Arbustoo 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I hope something is going to be done about this ballot stuffing. Arbustoo 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...
  • Dude, it's not a Christians vs. the Detroit Lions situation. I'm an atheist (because I reject Christ's far-left socialist teachings)--I want to keep it because anything that actually exists is worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 15:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Exactly my point. This shouldn't be about religion, only about what's best for wikipedia... Spawn Man 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

See: XIV - Wiggins 2

• Keep The subjects of the article clearly exist. Kurt Weber 15:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed they do. And the ones who are genuinely notable (and a few who are not) are already linked in the LBU article, which is certainly not overlarge. So this separate article is unnecessary. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopedic list. Vote stacking attempt leaves a bad taste in my mouth. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 15:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vote stacking, sock-puppetry, and general disruption has made it impossible to fairly evaluate this article, but it appears to be a list of non-notable people associated with a non-notable school. At the very least, merge. Crunch 16:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yes I was found this all by myself - Keep this per Kurt.--God of War 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Crunch. rodii 19:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Crunch. --Dragonfiend 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

See: XV - Mote, beam, etc

• Keep Stop hating on anyone with religion. Swatjester 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason this has gotten so blown up is because Jason recruted help by emailing inclusionists. Deletionists did the same thing as well. Really, let's keep this between the two camps and not bring the gods into this! Factions are killing wikipedia. Brokenfrog

Anti-factionalist fearmongering ;-) Ruby 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Gamaliel 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Indicate they are LBU alumni on each person's biographical article. Ruby 03:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep LBU may be a diploma mill, but nonetheless there are a number of "graduates" who have articles on Wikipedia. Assuming these articles themselves aren't vanity (or the association to the college isn't made up), I see no reason why it's different from any of the other university lists on Wikipedia. I might agree to a policy to delete all of the "X university people" lists as unencyclopedic, but I see no reason to single this one out. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - while a diploma mill might have some notability, the people associated with it -- not so much.--SarekOfVulcan 08:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom.Gateman1997 08:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:19, Jan. 23, 2006
• Merge into Louisiana Baptist University page. I believe this list has a place on wikipedia, but it would be a nearly empty list as most of the people are non-notable, and we don't need to have nearly empty lists. Mangojuice 16:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete Diploma mill, in other words, they can hand out diplomas to anyone. So this list doesn't mean anything. Ashibaka tock 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti Watershed Wrestling

Speedy delete vanity organization with only 130 hits on Google. Sycthos^Talk 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Of which 35 are unique. If deleted, remove also from Professional wrestling promotion. -- Saberwyn - 03:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Although 130 hits on Google is more than most AFD's posted here. Not as notable as it's made out to be. — Moe ε 03:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --kingboyk 03:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Stifle 17:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Essexmutant 12:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is no content to sustain an article. --^BuGs^ 18:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sabbouha

Google search turns up ~80 results, none of them related to article. --NaconKantari 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The definition of neologism (or hoax). --InShaneee 03:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per neologism. — Moe ε 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Blnguyen 03:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)\
• Delete as per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms --Perfecto 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've never heard of it, had similer Google results as User:NaconKantar, and searched with ebay and ioffer, and got no results.--Esprit15d 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per neologism. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I think InShaneee is correct. It must be a hoax. --^BuGs^ 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extrovert magazine

Nn online magazine. Nn Alexa rank. 193 Google hits (10 unique). No media coverage. Fails WP:V.-- Perfecto 03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Perfecto 03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. -- Saberwyn - 03:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Moe ε 03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Why is eveyone stuck on what Google has to say? Google search result numbers are worth as much as the swamp land that's for free in Florida. It's the QUALITY of the information and if it's VERIFIABLE.Kmac1036 05:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said, Wikipedia:Verifiable it is not. Show your sources then, to prove I'm wrong. --Perfecto 05:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether Google fairly measures notability depends on the subject. Ruby Archer, a poet circa 1900, didn't Google much, but was still verifiable. However, Google is certainly a good way to check notability for an online magazine, as this claims to be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Incognito 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alexa rank 625,012. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Celebrity_Survivor

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

• Keep. I think it's a very interesting concept, based on the fact that it's a book.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrstyonthewall2 (talk • contribs) .

• • • May I ask which book? -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be Expanded. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an "indiscriminate collection of information." Unless this article contains more general content, like the article Survivor (TV series), it will have to be removed. Sycthos^Talk 03:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Judging from the author's comments, it's fancruft or some odd wikipedia term like that. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verification appears somehow. --W.marsh 03:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I only say keep because I think it can be expanded on. — Moe ε 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a hoax.Blnguyen 03:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like a hoax; cannot be verified; if it really happened, press would be all over it, don't you think? -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. hoax. Incognito 04:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly a hoax NoIdeaNick 07:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fabrication and hoax, not to mention copyright vio of the Survivor graphics. Crunch 15:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Check Bush

Hoax. The terms Apollo Zaros and Nakosis Droma turn up a combines total of zero hits. Bachrach44 03:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax article — Moe ε 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax nonsense and BJAODNed. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 17:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Incognito 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN and delete. Stifle 17:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Backwoods terror

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

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Grim. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 03:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Delete If not a hoax; then it's non-notable. — Moe ε 03:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax or nn. Blnguyen 05:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Zzzzz 08:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no IMDB entry that I could find. I consider an IMDB entry the bare minimum to even consider keeping a film article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Dr. Grim

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

• Delete. Character from an unverified film. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 17:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Zzzzz 08:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Gibbs Smith, Publisher

Delete. Looks like advertising, and link to website added after advert tag was added Avi 03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as ads/vanity. Blnguyen 05:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert, etc. Stifle 08:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --kingboyk 19:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I hate vanity Swatjester 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide. howcheng {chat} 19:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Le Méridien

Resembles an advertisement, no context Fightindaman 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising.Blnguyen 03:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Thinly re-phrased copy of company press release. Google for "43 properties in Europe, 47 properties in Africa", or for "Le Méridien brand" "a perfect complement". Lukas 10:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as redirect. Notable hotel chain. I've merged it to Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, along with the 6 other adstubs. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 13:02Z
• Change vote to keep as per Quarl. Lukas 13:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Quarl Dlyons493 Talk 19:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Given Quarl's edits I would say keep it instead.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightindaman (talk • contribs) 15:50, 18 January 2006
• The key points have been cleanly merged in to Starwood... nice job! Keep redirected ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] The new iraqi airforce

This may be a piece of original research/essay/speculation piece on the future of the Air Force within the Iraqi Militart forces. Blnguyen 03:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unless we can get some sources, and information. Captain Jackson 04:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without sources, at best this is a random shopping list of aeroplanes and at worst unverifiable speculation. Sliggy 12:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as speculation. "Now that there is a new power in Iraq, what will they fly?" Let's wait and see, and then write about it. --Thunk 23:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as obviously unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 23:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, all of the above, and not even remotely persuasive content. No source will be provided. Barno 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sports Fix

Non-notable website, 404'd and no alexa ranking --NaconKantari 03:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable website. 57 registered users. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 11:39Z
• Delete as nominated. -- Krash 16:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AP U.S. Review Terms

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

• Speedy Delete under A3. -Jcbarr 04:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree completely. This page is merely a repository of internal links to other Wikipedia pages, and as such, it falls outside the parameters for what a Wikipedia article constitutes. Although on a personal note, having taken the test last year, I wouldn't have minded having this kind of study guide. Still, it belongs somewhere else, not on Wikipedia. Hrkool 04:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencylcopedic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 11:38Z
• Userfy then delete as this seems like a well-meaning creation of someone. It just doesn't belong in the Article namespace. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Incognito 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. NatusRoma 06:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I was planning to AfD this myself. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Concur with initiator. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - It's a great idea, but its not an article, just a listing of some stuff that happened in US history. Storminnorman789 09:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] KatrinaData

Unverifiable project started this month by obscure company.-- Perfecto 04:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Perfecto 04:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, they launched yesterday, and they get a Wikipedia article the same night. I guess Wikipedia is now the nouveau company launch announcement service. What companies will pop up tomorrow, I guess we'll see in the Newpages log. --Perfecto 05:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a copy and paste job, with section titles by no content. Captain Jackson 04:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Actually the company was launched in August 2005; the project was planned in December 2005 and lauched all of 4 hours ago. I appreciate your deletion zeal but let's give it a chance to work. It is much needed resource and historical archive. Thanks. 12:21, 18 January 2006 (EST)
• Delete - I'm happy to "give it a chance to work", but only when we know that it has does it need a Wikipedia article. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 11:38Z
• Delete you need to be notable before you gain a Wikipedia article. Sliggy 12:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as vanity. Article was created by User:Ddellinger and contains comment: "KATRINAData is the brainchild of Demian Dellinger." In short, he wrote it about himself. Mark K. Bilbo 18:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Petaholmes (A7) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 11:37Z

[edit] Michael J. Hillman

This is an article about a person of no historical significance. Zelmerszoetrop 04:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Will tag this for speedy as there is no assertion of being notable.Blnguyen 04:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with Blnguyen on Speedy Delete -Jcbarr 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --NaconKantari 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement Utopia

Non-notable website/forum, only 293 members --NaconKantari 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This site is cab fare to nowhere. Captain Jackson 04:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn as per above. How is 4-5 members a day an accomplishment? --Lightdarkness 17:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and what's up with article text --Timecop 00:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn Incognito 00:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Ugh. DELETE. NONCENSORED Popeye 00:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - lol he said cocks. spam. -- Femmina 00:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-article on non-subject. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above asap! Ghastly. --kingboyk 23:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above . —This user has left wikipedia 12:13 2006-01-23

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Geogre. Punkmorten 16:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orange Dance

This article appears to be nothing but nonsense and is certainly about a non-notable topic. —Cleared as filed. 04:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Nonsense by the same author as Amit Chauhan which is up for sppedy due to a joke/attack bio. Blnguyen 04:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete nn, video is of a guy flailing around.--Bkwillwm 04:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete patent nonsense (attack, hormonal responses) Avi 04:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete. It looked suspicious, which is why I originally tagged it with {{explain significance}} earlier this afternoon. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, nonsense Incognito 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as an object lesson for how Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Daniel Case 07:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense.attack. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 11:36Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marx Myths & Legends

Website with no apparent notability beyond that of the most websites. 676 google hits. Bkwillwm 04:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete smells like vanity to me. One of the "notable contributors" is the owner of the domain name. Mark K. Bilbo 18:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. -- Krash 16:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn incog 00:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete commonbrick 23:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Timelines.com

Delete -appears to be merely an advertisement for this website mtz206 04:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Alexa ranking: 2,737,727. 'Nuff said. Daniel Case 06:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 11:36Z
• Delete per Quarl. -- Krash 16:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 19:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mal Couch

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

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

• Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 01:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You and half the people voting here are missing the point. This AfD isn't about you. It's about the entry. Defend the entry here, yourself at the RfC. - Jaysus Chris 04:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Delete per nom. A.J.A. 04:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Editor nominated 10 Christian biography entries for deletion, today. It's hard to assume good faith. Plus, Mal Couch is a very notable author and minister. He is also the President of Tyndale Theological Seminary. --Jason Gastrich 05:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep can only happen if the article has had no delete votes and the nominator withdraws, or the nomination was in bad faith. Stifle 17:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very prolific Christian author. Not what you or I would read, maybe, but many of his books are available in mainstream outlets (Amazon, Barnes & Noble). Also, a bit of research reveals him to be a media witness to the JFK assasination for added interest. - Jaysus Chris 05:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• An added comment: Those concerning themselves with LBU or the entry's author are completely missing the point. This guy fulfils WP:BIO's guidelines for authors better than scores of authors who are included without a thought as to where their degrees came from. How can you deny his notability? Is it because he's a fundamentalist? They can be notable, too. - Jaysus Chris 08:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• keep please this is a important author should not be erased Yuckfoo 06:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Reasonably notable Christian figure. Number of deletion nominations is not an indicator of "bad faith" and it certainly isn't an indicator simply because the articles to be deleted are "Christian biography entries." - WarriorScribe 06:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough. Logophile 07:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be notable as per WP:BIO guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep numerous books, documentaries.JFK angle gives added interest.I'm sorry but a swarm of deletion nominations such as this looks suspicious esp. if articles like this are included. California12 02:03 18 January 2006
• Keep over zealous afd approach here. Fairly prolific author. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 10:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fair number of actual books on Amazon (et al). Mark K. Bilbo 18:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per everyone else. Hall Monitor 18:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article was created by Jason Gastrich to promote his school as a mainstream institution. This is only one of around 10 articles he created promoting his religion/degree/school. See List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people. --Q
  • Keep as per above. That an interested person wrote it is less than ideal, but not enough of a reason to delete it. --Thunk 23:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Q is correct, but each article should be judged on the merits of its own topic. Consistent keeps from non-sockpuppet, non-religious-username editors suggests Couch is notable. Google sez: [[22]], so I say Keep. Barno 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Cnwb 00:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Guettarda 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete another bit of Gastrichcruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. Stifle 17:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean you didn't examine the entry? --Jason Gastrich 18:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It does not mean that. It means that Stifle agrees with JzG on the reasons. That's all it means. Would you use that disparaging comment if someone voted to keep per someone else, or are you trying to make this vote appear meaningless? -Harvestdancer 19:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• KeepBrokenfrog 21:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Yes I have read it, and I've even cleaned up some links for you. --kingboyk 23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable vanity gastrich-cruft from a holder of a fake pHd from a diploma mill.Blnguyen 02:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Blnguyen, there are 1100+ LBU students and thousands of graduates. Did you ever stop to think that comments like these could be offensive to thousands of people? LBU is unaccredited, but it certainly doesn't fit the criteria of a diploma mill. How many diploma mills have a campus with on-campus courses, teachers, and faculty? Not to mention Jerry Falwell is giving the graduation ceremony address. I'm sure the biggest name in fundamentalist Christianity speaks at tons of diploma mills. JK. --Jason Gastrich 05:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Clutching at straws, there. Charles Matthews

• Delete Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If he's writen stuff then he should at least have a little slice of wikipedia? I mean, Wikipedia is huge, everyone can have a share can't they? Everyone thinks that because he isn't in the news, that he shouldn't be included in wikipedia, the so called "sum of all human knowledge". But how do we know he isn't influencial? He effects hundreds with his words..... Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...
• Very Strong Delete. Mal Couch is unnotable and does not meet Wiki standards of notability. Arbustoo 00:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Feel free to give your opinoin, but the guy meets WP:BIO several times over. - Jaysus Chris 03:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough. (BTW I am a gay lapsed Catholic with no religious belief, so there is no BAC agenda here). FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a prolific published author. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as per the evidence provided by Jonel. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zio's Pizza

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

• Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 05:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. (The original speedy tagger).Blnguyen 05:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Flowerparty■ 06:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with pepperoni and sausages, please. Daniel Case 07:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Despite what this article says, its a chain of pizza stores not just one. Mentioned as one of the top 25 US pizza chains [23] They used to be called Mazzio's Pizza, apparently.. which actually is here Mazzio’s-- Astrokey44|talk 10:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment that sounds like an argument for speedily redirecting it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:23, Jan. 18, 2006
    • Im confused now, it looks like Zio's is owned by Mazzio's but there are still more Mazzio's than Zio's, and zio's used to be called mazzio's. It says here that there are 200+ Mazzio's and 17 zio's so I guess zio's should be Merged into Mazzio's -- Astrokey44|talk 00:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 11:35Z
• Merge from Mazzio's, then turn Mazzio's into a redirect (might as well use the current company name). Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 17:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Merge as per above Dlyons493 Talk 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lion.mane (talk • contribs) 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC).
• Delete. Based on reading the links provided by Astrokey44, I'm not convinced that the Zio's in this article and the Zio's mentioned in the PMQ are the same. The Tulsa TV site says Mazzio's new chain is "Zio's Italian Kitchen" and the Mazzio's article doesn't mention any expansion into Nebraska (and the logos don't look anything alike). However, I can't see the Mazzio's web site because they won't code their Flash thing to work in FireFox and I'm on Win AS 2003 and can't get Flash to work in IE either. I'll change my vote if someone can verify it's actually the same. howcheng {chat} 19:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Ice

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

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

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

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

[edit] AfD nomination

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

[edit] Comments and votes

• Delete per nom. A.J.A. 05:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Editor nominated 10 Christian biography entries for deletion, today. It's hard to assume good faith. Plus, Thomas Ice is a very notable author, debater, speaker, and leader. In fact, he has over 37,000 hits on Google.com [25]. --Jason Gastrich 05:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A load of hits on Yahoo, too. Until we refine the search criteria. And even refining it gives us gems like this: Saint Thomas Ice Arena ... The Saint Thomas Ice Arena is located just across from the Saint Thomas Academy school in Mendota Heights ... Copyright © 2004 Saint Thomas Ice Arena. Last modified: 06/10/05 ...www.saintthomasicearena.com - 12k - Cached - More from this site" Jim62sch 23:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

And if we refine the search to this, "thomas+ice+christian", we get "Results 1 - 6 of about 11 for "thomas+ice+christian"". Wow, impressive. Jim62sch 23:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. The correct search term is "thomas ice" christian which yields 21,700 hits. As anyone can prove, at least 25,000 of the 37,400 "Thomas Ice" hits are about this author. Probably many more, around 30,000. Even so, this does not mean "notable" to me... Actually, anyone with some knowledge of Christendom and eyes in his head (or fingers on his hand) can see that Thomas Ice is notable, both positively and negatively, to millions of people. OK, where notability is disputed, references can clinch it, but really, in this case it's like trying to prove apples taste good (218 Google hits). AvB ÷ talk 16:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep 37,800 hits at Google, not nearly all of which are this person. Notability may exist within a small segment of Christendom, but is the opinion is apparently not widespread; and Wiki isn't here to cater to the hero worship of a single editor or a relative few. - WarriorScribe 05:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Vote was originally for deletion. Changed (if that's okay) upon further review of WP:BIO and the subject's publication record. Apologies all around for the need to change the vote. - WarriorScribe 07:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, he has likely written more books than you've read. --Jason Gastrich 05:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack noted with amusement. - WarriorScribe 05:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A display of his much-touted debating skills. Jim62sch 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• keep' please this is a important author erasing this does not make sense at all Yuckfoo 05:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Important author" to whom? By what criteria? - WarriorScribe 05:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To those that read (written for your amusement, of course). --Jason Gastrich 06:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack again noted, with amusement. - WarriorScribe 06:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't went get some sales statistics and prove this either way?

Mein Kampf sold quite well also. Jim62sch 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mein Kampf sold extremely well, and is notable. Bad example. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How about Mao Zedong's book? Jim62sch 00:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That also sold extremely well and is very notable. Another bad example. --Cyde Weys 23:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? Jim62sch 01:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. hius qualifications are from a diploma mill. self-styled religious leader.Blnguyen 06:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Easy Keep WP:BIO - Jaysus Chris 07:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He seems notable enough. Personal interest and taste should not be used as criteria for inclusion or deletion. I'd chop out half the articles in Wikipedia, if I were able to weed out what I find unimportant. I might even delete this one, if it were a matter of what is "important" to me. Logophile 07:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please explain who published his books and cite where 5,000+ people have read them. WP:BIO You keep saying "notable" and offer no citation, much like the article.

• Keep You may not know him but in the world of Christian Prophecy he is a prominent exponent of the pre-tribulation position. I would never dream of asking for deletion of articles about individuals who have a similar influence and yet hold other views. Admittedly the article could do with some improvement and additional biographical and professional information. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 09:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep many published books -- Astrokey44|talk 09:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - His published books make him notable enough. And by the way Jason Gastrich - not everyone is in on this anti-Christian conspiracy. Personally, I'm looking at the articles nominated with a fair eye and deciding on each one whether or not it is notable. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 16:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you weren't using your "fair eye" on the Mike Randall entry. You voted to delete because you said he was the president of a diploma mill. In fact, he is the president of a regionally accredited university. I hope you change your vote for that entry. --Jason Gastrich 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's "regionally accredited university" in the sense of "nationally un-accredited university" - i.e. diploma mill. Not that you have any conflict of interest, right? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, "regionally accredited university" really doesn't mean anything. It's vacuous nonsense meant to deceive. Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Jim62sch 22:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment:JzG and Jim haven't a clue. Mike Randall is the president of a regionally accredited university. Regional accreditation is the highest, governmental accreditation in the land. I do hope you guys look it up, get your facts straight, and stop personal attacks; especially when you're wrong. --Jason Gastrich 04:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing my vote because frankly the behavior of a lot of people related to this issue has turned me off. --Cyde Weys 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You're either mistaken or being misleading. The government doesn't accredit schools. Read School_accreditation. FeloniousMonk 06:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Of the books listed, about 25% of them are sold at Amazon.com. The ones that are sold usually place between 250,000 - 500,000 on the popularity of most sold books. The most popular is the commentary on the Left Behind series.--Esprit15d 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not hard to get an ISBN work, properly package to be sold at Amazon.

• Keep as per everyone else. Hall Monitor 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep reasonable number of books found in mainstream (Amazon, B&N, such). And the dispensational fundamentalist camp is notable, however, unfortunate that is (I keep wanting to apologize that my people gave the world Darby). Mark K. Bilbo 18:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that being on Amazon makes a book notable or mainstream. Many of the ones they sell are self published. David D. (Talk) 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Point. However, at least some of his books are with (albeit Christian) publishing houses (such as Harvest House, New Leaf). And he has written and/or edited with LaHaye who is a major figure in the dispensational fundamentalist movement. Ice may not be as notable as a Falwell but doesn't seem--to me at least--to be obscure either. I'd say he's "notable enough." Maybe I should say "weak keep?" Mark K. Bilbo 20:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this article was created by Jason Gastrich to promote his school as a mainstream institution. This is only one of around 10 articles he created promoting his religion/degree/school. See List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people. --Q
• Strong keep published author B.ellis 21:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak KeepDelete I agree with Q. but the fact is that this fellow's output is enough to allow him a mention. Also, it is possible more sceptical content may eventually be produced; this lunatic believes in the rapture lol. Based on further comments below, changing my vote. The vote stacking is unacceptable and the provenance of the author's qualifications ludicrous. Eusebeus 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Quantity over quality and relevance? Jim62sch 00:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak KeepDelete The books are all vanity press, he's barely notable, but as a co-founder and director of a diploma mill we should probably have an article on him. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  Changing vote, the more I look at this and read other comments, the harder it gets to justify space for this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable. Cnwb 00:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Guettarda 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete director of a redlinked institution, teaching on a redlinked subject, PhD from a diploma mill, books have Amazon sales rank in the hundreds of thousands and above (where listed at all). A book I know well, a steadcy if not meteoric seller, is Mister God, This is Anna. That's been around for, what? twenty years? And it still has a sales rank of the order of 50k. Sorry, but this is just one more of the steady stream of Louisiana Baptist University alumni being pushed by Gastrich. And I note that he's also been vote-stacking, which absolutely clinhes it for me. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and JzG, influenced strongly by the vote stacking. Stifle 17:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, two things. First, since the alleged vote stacking, there haven't been any votes to keep; just to delete. My alleged vote stacking simply asked four or five people to vote (not one way or the other). So, you being strongly influenced by that doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, voting one way out of spite isn't in Wikipedia's best interests, so I'm sure that'll be noted by many as well. Honorable Wikipedians will examine the entry and decide one way or the other. --Jason Gastrich 18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Gastrich, allow me to say for myself, I am an Afd regular and I often vote to delete, not because I am a deletionist but because those doing the nominating usually have good reason. That said, I also do due diligence. I am very proud of having "saved" several articles, including a Russian folk song [26] and a truly tacky but notable drinking game [27]. I also chastise those whom I suspect of bad-faith nominations. I do not consider these bad-faith noms. It appears to me that you, as you cannot rewrite the article for LBU since it is protected, have decided to take another tack and make a list of people who went to LBU and write articles about them. While it is understandable that you would want to try to gain for your alma mater as much credibility as can be gleaned, filling the pages of WP with articles about people whose main claim to fame is that they got their diploma from the same place as you is vanity. You have compounded vanity with attempts at vote-stacking, and now with personal attacks[28][29] and accusations of "spite voting" which is nonsense in my case, and I believe in the case of every editor voting here. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In a way, the purpose of vote-stacking has been served -- a handful of people heard of the Frozen Thomas prior to this AfD, now scores of people have. Excellent PR work...or is that evangelizing? Self-promotion? Pride? (Oh, no, can't be the last, that's one of those sin things). Jim62sch 00:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (weak) per KillerChihuahua. David D. (Talk) 19:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (Strong) He nominated 10 articles by the same person on the same subject for deletion. That just reeks of bad faith. Add to that the subject's being a well known and prolific author (albeit with an odd subject matter) warrents a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not paper!Brokenfrog 20:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (strong) I don't see how this is necessary with the inclusion of actual notables on LBU's page. The discussion seems to be mostly reasonable peppered other than the personal attacks from the author. I would say that there would be vote stacking. I received notice of this from a email list headed by Jason Gastrich himself. If I could get a place to host I would be happy to post said email. To quote from that message:

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

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

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

Some relevant links to evidence of what Jazzscrub describes: [30] jcsm.org/Online/WeeklyDevotions440.htm FeloniousMonk 22:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep university-related topics are notable. Cynical 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is America. Its not a University just because it calls itself one. I could open a hot-dog stand University if I wanted. It just wouldn't be accredited, like LBU. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, this post shows your ignorance regarding LBU and its requirements. You can learn about the university here, though [31]. --Jason Gastrich 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your campaign here to promote your diploma mill is its most notable aspect. Who knows, maybe they'll name a "hall" in your honor... FeloniousMonk 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The requirements being that one must accept Jesus as his personal saviour and believe in the accuracy of the Bible. BTW, Jason: KC is hardly ignorant, rather, KC is very well-versed on a wide variety of subjects and researches before commenting. Jim62sch 00:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into an article which discusses Ice and anyone else who has at least this much notability in the subject area. I don't think he warrants his own article, but this one seems to be of sufficient interest (if only to baptist circles) to mention somewhere within a more general article. bcatt 22:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pity we can't delete the author. — Dunc|☺ 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete FeloniousMonk 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Dunc's on the right track. Ice baby needs to be melted and steamed away into the ether. Jim62sch 22:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it looks for me like he's worth a note on wikipedia, at least for the mere volume of books he wrote. --Devein 22:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --kingboyk 23:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• comment if this many people care you might as well keep it, I mean there are almost a million articles, if more than a handful of people have an interest then why delete it--M4bwav 23:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. So . . . wanna vote? --Jason Gastrich 07:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• keep as per User:Cyde opinion above. Not that I agree with any of Mr. Ice's opinions, but he has published alot.--Azathar 23:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He appears to be notable enough. Banes 07:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Cyde ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:BIO. Alphax ^τεχ 07:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not much for Gastrich's style here, but rampant deletions just to spite one guy rub me the wrong way. Rogue 9 10:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your analysis may be in error. Thomas Ice is essentially a nobody in the real world. He has a small cult following, and produced books of little or no value to anyone but those who share his rather unorthodox views. (This may seem harsh, but reality sometimes bites). In a way, what would really be best would be an article on "Inerrantist Writers" (or something like that) that mentioned Ice, but wasting kilobytes on this guy alone is a tad ridiculous. Jim62sch 11:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, seems notable enough. --King of All the Franks 11:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per a recent AfD for Louisiana Baptist University, it appears there is a community out there who believes in deleting anything with practices they don't agree in. Better to know than to ignore. --StuffOfInterest 12:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He's a published author, as per WP:BIO. Kerobaros 13:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Holy good gravy! This is a good quality article. All ISBNs are there. Not a red link in sight. There's obviously a place in Wikipedia for this guy. - The Great Gavini ^{lobster telephone}

• ^{Strong Keep Not one single good argument against deletion here. This dude is the head of an institution founded by Tim LaHayes. Tim LaHayes is more noteworthy then all you people put together. This article isn't going anywhere, it is staying right here. Itake 15:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{This is an arugument from ignorance (you don't know about people voting here) as well as an assertion (Tim is noteworthy) and not very convincing. Certainly much less convincing than the arguments to delete. David D. (Talk) 18:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{Tim LaHaye (ain't no flippin' "s" on the end of his name) is also a bad writer, a bad logician, a twisted thinker and a sower of discord. Heading-up any organization started by him is no great achievement. Jim62sch 01:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}

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

• ^{Delete: Non-notable. Justin Eiler 16:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}

• ^{Keep Published Author Wynler 17:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Keep same as above. --Yonghokim 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}

• ^{Keep I see little reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}

• ^{Keep Salva veritate! Lerner 18:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Strong Keep easily passes the WP:BIO standards.  ALKIVAR™ 18:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Strong Keep--Hayson 21:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}

• ^{Keep. None of the above seems to challenge that he's an author sufficiently widely read to justify inclusion. Disagreeing with what he wrote, however strongly, isn't a reason for deletion. If someone cares to provide evidence that the many listed publications are all vanity press, I will reconsider. But the problem is, Amazon isn't a good guide for authors like this who sell directly or through lobby groups. Andrewa 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Keep. I hadn't heard of him, but I did an Amazon.com query, and that gave 498 results in Books. Sounds like he's at least a prolific published author (fine for inclusion per WP:BIO), and even if he's not as well known, Tim LaHaye definitely is, as one of the authors of the bestselling Left Behind series. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}

• ^{Comment Um, no. You left your search open so that it caught books with "Ice Cream" in the title written by people with the first name "Thomas." Put quotes around the name and you get no more than 42. Many of which are translations of a single work, at least one is about Thomas Ice (et al), several are "pocket books," and the greater number he is a contributor to (as in an article or so), not the sole nor primary author. You have to be careful with Amazon searches. Particularly with names that have common words in them such as "Ice." Mark K. Bilbo 03:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}

• ^{Strong Keep per Logophile and mr lobster-man.the1physicist 22:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Comment -- Another link of value: Jason Exposed}
• ^{strong keep, the "hero" of article is author of many works, compact and quite informative article. Gubbubu 22:55, 20 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)"}

^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)}

^{Yes, posting the e-mail was insinuating that the e-mail is bullshit. Nice catch. Jim62sch 02:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}

• ^{Keep. An author with several books on Amazon.com --Vizcarra 18:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}
  • ^{That doesn't mean anything. At a cost of $150 per book I too can get published on Amazon. See Lulu Publishing. The ability to spend paltry sums of money does not make someone notable. --Cyde Weys 04:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{Do you have any evidence that Tommy used Lulu Publishing? --Jason Gastrich 07:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{Publisher is Harvest House Publishers not Lulu Publishing. --Vizcarra 18:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{His point was ANYONE who wants to fork out a few bucks can get their works sold at Amazon. Arbustoo 02:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{I think his point was that Amazon.com hits do not mean anything, with the implication that Vizcarra's link is useless. But that is putting the world on its head. Amazon is an extremely useful tool when checking out someone's publications. They list all titles they can deliver - new, used, Print on demand - anything. Thomas Ice has 42 hits on Amazon where he is listed as author, co-author, editor, or subject (yes - there are books by others ABOUT and AGAINST Thomas Ice's views). From there it is easy to check the publishers. One mouseclick away from the list linked by Vizcarra one can see the real publisher. What is easier, saying "Lulu" or clicking on a link? Vizcarra gave full information. Click here and check it out. This article should never have been nominated for AfD. AvB ÷ talk 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)}

• ^{Keep --badlydrawnjeff 13:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Strong Keep -- this is clearly a notable person, and not only in view of the number of books he has sold (BTW, most titles predate POD etc.). I'll try to free some time to look up references. AvB ÷ talk 18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Strong Keep. If he's writen stuff, (& a lot of it!), then he should at least have a little slice of wikipedia? I mean, Wikipedia is huge, everyone can have a share can't they? Everyone thinks that because he isn't in the news, that he shouldn't be included in wikipedia, the so called "sum of all human knowledge". But how do we know he isn't influencial? He effects hundreds with his words..... Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...}
• ^{Strong Delete of unnotable article to promote alumni of LBU. Arbustoo 02:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Keep - 20 published books makes him notable. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete - anyone can publish a book. Ashibaka tock 18:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Keep 20 published books, also connected to LaHaye and that's a Christian slant which has quite some influence in American Christianity. Disagreement with author or subject of an article is no reason for deletion. --Irmgard 00:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{Suspected Gastrich sockpuppets}

^{Those listed at Requests for CheckUser: [32]}

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

^Wiggins2

^{Click the link and learn [33] Jim62sch 02:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)}

• ^{Keep the article as per Amazon ranking eg [34] and spank Gastrich, depending on check-user or other evidence, and move the discussion to the talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)}

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

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

^{The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Regulated capitalism

Article is POV and original research. There is no point in trying to create a different and better article with the same name because it would be redundant with mixed economy, capitalism, regulation, and others. A redirect is not necessary because nothing links to this article. Delete. Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Nikodemos, OR and no need to try and 'correct' because the subject belongs at mixed economy and others. --Malthusian (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless outside sources are provided CDC (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. Mark K. Bilbo 18:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Regulation. Gazpacho 19:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Note that there is a general consensus that articles on high schools are to be kept. howcheng {chat} 19:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horseheads High School

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

• Keep and expand as with any high school article. I don't know about concepts of tiny in American schools, but I doubt that as many as 1% of schools in the UK have over 1,500 pupils. CalJW 06:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Horseheads (town), New York. Past precedent to keep high schools in some form, but this article is rather short. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per other Schools articles. Jcuk 11:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Horseheads (town), New York per WP:SCH. --Malthusian (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep so it can grow. Bhoeble 16:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per School Inclusionist Cabal. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 16:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Carioca 17:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — valid high school with 1,500 students; I wouldn't call that a small school. — RJH 18:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Accidently worded the above message wrong, I MEANT tiny, insignificant article about a High School. I would much rather merge it though. — Moe ε 20:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per WP:SCH and for reasons illustrated at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 21:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded to meet WP:SCH proposal otherwise Merge.Gateman1997 23:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Prompt Schoolwatch (part of WP:SCH) to expand this article; if no progress shown soon, merge into Horseheads (town), New York. I live in Spencer, thirty or forty miles away from Horseheads, and there's nothing even regionally special about its high school beyond the extent to which the School Inclusionist Cabal finds every high school special. (I reluctantly agree for high schools, but not primary/middle schools.) This sentence contains three articles and three external links. Can more be added to distinguish HHS from a thousand other high schools and their stubs? Barno 00:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you expect to influence people by name calling? If the entire extent of your thought process is to think up insults, don't be surprised if you have no influence over the outcome of this, or any article. --Rob 01:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Now boys let's calm down :).Gateman1997 02:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Rob, the only "namecalling" was the tongue-in-cheek use of a phrase used in an earlier vote in the same AfD. Editors who spend much time on AfD get used to a few people making such accusations and the rest of us joking about them. The other 88 of my 91 words were a request for what WP policy requires for inclusion of any topic, rather than "Keep, school" being sufficient for a nearly empty article. Sorry if that proportion struck you as "the entire extent of (my) thought process". Barno 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "School Inclusionist Cabal" can of course be interpreted as a violation of WP:CIVIL. Tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic, and other facetious comments are often misinterpreted in this medium, and its easy to accidentally misconstrue words as personal attacks. However, Cyde Weys has thus far not been admonished for his usage of this term over quite a number of AfD nominations. I believe that discounting an entire argument because of a brief tongue-in-cheek comment, with much precedent - therefore obvious as to its intent, is unfair. Since Barno has apologized for the fact that the comment offended you, I think it's fair to give his comment the weight it deserves, whatever the vote. -Rebelguys2 04:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Cyde Weys. Current precedent is to keep high schools. -Rebelguys2 04:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as this appears to meet the criteria established by WP:SCH, although it could use some expansion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SCH. Some work on references may be needed though. Also, can somebody familiar with this tell, if this school is related to the one of the same name/place with a graduating class in 1888? [35] [36]. Perhaps one school was built, torn down, and entirely new largely unrelated one built later. Or maybe it was a a continuation of the same institution, but a different building (as is often the case with some schools, for which we discuss all buildings in one article). Since this is speculation on my part (aka unverified) I obviously didn't mention it in the article. As for merge suggestions, I suggest, that since the district has exactly one high school, and we merge to districts (if possible), any merger be done to *this* article. That is if any elem substubs are made, they be merged/redirected here, rather then merging/redirecting this elsewhere. --Rob 05:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Delete, because I have the balls to suggest it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:56, Jan. 22, 2006
• Keep The subject of the article clearly exists Kurt Weber 00:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 19:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Vandal

Band vanity. This borders on speedy. To cut the crap from the article - it's basically a band thats main claim to fame is a single gig at Sydney University - definitely not encyclopaedic Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 05:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. Blnguyen 05:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable musical group per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 11:34Z
• Keep. Check here for discography. Certainly seem notable. Cnwb 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cnwb 00:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well known Australian band, with several albums, meets WP:MUSIC.--nixie 00:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (and clean up extensively). Notable band with a notable approach to music and entertainment. AnAn 01:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Heck if I have heard of them they must be pretty famous. Shame the article is so bad though. Has anyone checked if it is a copyvio? --Martyman-(talk) 01:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and send to cleanup, per above. Lists this and this as sources, doesn't appear to be copying either of them. --bainer (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: One of those sources started opening popups and trying to install software on my machine. --Martyman-(talk) 02:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per nixie pfctdayelise 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know how you get that their main claim to fame is a gig a Sydney Uni, even if the rest of it it really badly written. JPD (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup -- Astrokey44|talk 13:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Geogre. Punkmorten 16:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hikaru_and_Michy

Delete: Patent nonsense. Dbarnes 05:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as nonsense. I have tagged it so. Blnguyen 05:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 11:33Z

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki. howcheng {chat} 19:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stinginess

This is just a dictionary definition Greebo the Cat 05:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as dictionary definition. -- Saberwyn - 05:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dbtfz 07:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki,Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-18 11:33Z
• Delete as dicdef per nom. --Lockley 19:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The FBC

Looks like an NN internet radio station Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• • "NN" is shorthand for "non-notable", indicating that the nominator believes the article os unsuitable for an encyclopedia entry. I suggest you review the Wikipedia inclusion guidelines at WP:WEB, to see if yout internet radio station passes the required marks to warrant inclusion. No Vote. -- Saberwyn - 05:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not notable enough online yet however it has a following offline as well as it is played during conventions such as Anthrocon and Eurofurence both of which have a large turn out which would in turn make the radio station associated with the cons notable. TornadoCreator^T/_C\^@ 05:59, 18 January 2006
      • Sorry mate, it wouldn't. The best you can do is go back and work on your station, and if it becomes notable in the future an independent observer will be sure to add an article won't they? --kingboyk 23:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. no third party verification from a reputable source -- Astrokey44|talk 09:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete admitted vanity page. Mark K. Bilbo 19:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Astrokey44. Stifle 17:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, as TornadoCreator admits. --kingboyk 23:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Grant Jeffrey

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

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

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

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

• Strong keep. This editor nominated 4 Christian biography entries for deletion, today. It's hard to assume good faith. By the way, Grant Jeffrey is very notable. He has written numerous books and has over 11 million Google hits [37].--Jason Gastrich 05:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

comment the number of nominations by the editor is irrelevant to the issue. Mark K. Bilbo 19:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

comment by "11 million Google hits" you must mean about 19K right?.

• Keep, per the persuasive commentary of Jaysus Chris. If the original author or the editors of a piece bothered to make the case for notability as he has done, rather than whine about deletions, complain about imaginary "vandalism," and recruit or post "keep" votes that say nothing more than "very notable" or "clearly notable," there would probably be fewer of these AfDs. Two more things: You get 11,000,000 hits if you don't know how to use a search engine. The fact is that, even if you properly search for "Grant Jeffrey" and include the quotes, you get just over 45,000 and, by the third page, you're running into lots of other people with the name, or identified as "Grant, Jeffrey." If you just type "Grant Jeffrey" in the search field without the quotes, you get every page that Google can find with either word or both words. One would think that one whom considers himself a web host and web page designer would know that. Second, there is no reason to disparage the editor on the subject of "good faith" simply because he has nominated several of Gastrich's articles for deletion. Jeffrey's reputation as "very notable" seems to occur only within a small segment of Christendom. By and large, the majority of Christians are either unaware of him or pay him no mind. - WarriorScribe 05:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. hius qualifications are from a diploma mill. self-styled religious leader.Blnguyen 06:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep if and only if it can be established that the contents are not a copyright violation. The text is lifted directly from the subject's homepage. [38] The subject is absolutely notable. - Jaysus Chris 07:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • From the Wiki article: Grant Jeffrey is known as one of the top teachers on Bible prophecy and a reasoned defense of Christianity. As Chairman of Frontier Research Publications, over the last decade and a half, Jeffrey’s numerous best selling books have garnered over four million sales. A number of publishers, such as Harper Collins, Bantam, Word, Zondervan, and Tyndale have published his writings in 23 languages throughout the world. Frequently, all throughout the world, Jeffrey appears on TV and radio shows.
  • From the Grant Jeffrey Page: Grant Jeffrey is recognized as one of the leading teachers on Bible prophecy and an intelligent defense of our Christian faith. He is the chairman of Frontier Research Publications, Inc., a leading publisher of books, tapes and videos. Grant’s 18 best selling books have resulted in more than four million sales during the last thirteen years. Numerous publishers including Bantam, Harper Collins, Zondervan, Word, Tyndale have printed his books in 23 languages throughout the world. He appears frequently on TV and radio throughout the world. Grant and his wife Kaye have been in full time ministry since 1988.
  • Sure looks like plagiarism to me. This wouldn't be the first incident of plagiarism for this particular author/editor. - WarriorScribe 12:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if copyright issues are resolved. Notable enough. Logophile 07:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Grant Jeffrey is one of the hosts of Praise the Lord, an international tv series.He also is on a nationally syndicated radio show.California12 )1:16 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep many published books -- Astrokey44|talk 09:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, these religious tracts seem to be ten a penny, but a TV show is different. I wouldn't watch it if Satan was knocking on the door and it was my last chance to save my soul, but that's not a criterion for deletion. --Malthusian (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep over zealous afd approach here. Forget the Google hits issue that is not a sufficient test. His books are very influencial in the evengelical end of the church. By the way I don't agree personally with all he writes. Still keep. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 10:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This one seems to be notable: lots of books and a tv show. --Pierremenard 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable personality. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 16:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup to Remove Plagarism, and then this can be decided fairly. -Harvestdancer 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per Jason Gastrich, haphazard nomination. Hall Monitor 18:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep looks like a kook but even kooks can be notable. Mark K. Bilbo 19:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article was created by Jason Gastrich to promote his school as a mainstream institution. This is only one of around 10 articles he created promoting his religion/degree/school. See List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people. --Q
• Keep Grant Jeffrey is quite well known around christian "end times prophesy" circles.--Tdl1060 21:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Guettarda 03:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral at present, still looking for verifiable neutral information on this person (genuine authorities usually have degrees from real universities, no unaccredited ones). Article is now more neutral than it was, but in becoming more neutral it is also less compalling per WP:BIO - funny how often toning down a hagiography does that :-). If kept most of the books need to go, WP:ISNOT a directory. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --badlydrawnjeff 14:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, after being absolutely sure that plagiarism issues are addressed. -Colin Kimbrell 21:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Wikipedia is not here to promote obscure works by obscure authors. Unnotable. Fails to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Arbustoo 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds? Please describe which of the criteria he doesn't meet. --Jason Gastrich 21:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

An independent source that shows a publishing history of 5,000+. See discussion above. Also see Plagiarism discussion. Arbustoo 00:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It appears this is a legit author altho apparently a bit on the kooky side, but that is no reason to delete. --Censorwolf 21:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)--Censorwolf 21:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Combs

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

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

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

• Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Delete as leader of a self-promoting vanity organization.Blnguyen 05:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Editor has nominated 10 Christian biography entries for deletion, today. It's hard to assume good faith. Combs is very notable for his work on the Prophecy Study Bible, his television appearances, his work in the field of Bible prophecy, etc. --Jason Gastrich 05:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

comment resorting to personal attacks on the editor isn't helping your case. Mark K. Bilbo 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Number of deletion nominations are not an indicator of anything other than "good faith" simply because one person doesn't care to see his articles nominated. Subject is not "very notable" because he has a little-known Bible program and is not all that well known in the field of prophesy except within a small segment of Christendom. Not "very notable" because of one person's opinion. Notability is a result of concensus. - WarriorScribe 05:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable enough. Logophile 07:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• • You keep posting "notable enough." I'm curious: In what way? - WarriorScribe 12:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - what criterion for notability does this person satisfy? Being an editor of a magazine? Uh, no. --Pierremenard 11:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - is a nonentity. Mention on the LBU page is as much mention as he deserves. -Harvestdancer 17:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This article was created by Jason Gastrich to promote his school as a mainstream institution. This is only one of around 10 articles he created promoting his religion/degree/school. See List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people. --Q
• Delete more cruft from Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) (check those contribs, people) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this agreeing with JzG. Eusebeus 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Guettarda 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.--nixie 04:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. This is Gastrichcruft. Stifle 17:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article seems well documented, and the provost of a well known school should be in wikipedia (believe it or not, it is well known in some circles). What the hell did Gastrich do to a deletionist to get this kind of treatment? We should not be telling all our friends to go vote to delete articles. This faction stuff is hurting the wiki. If the article contains garbage, we should clean it up, but if the article is well cited, keep it. Wikipeida space is very cheap. That said, you might want to mention the school's controversy in this page to keep things NPOV. Brokenfrog 20:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well documented? There no citations in the body of the article. And Louisiana Baptist University is not well known by any stretch.

• Delete per Guy. BrokenFrog, this guy is not notable, and what Gastrich did was write a bunch of vanity cruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Being an official for a non-accredited university isn't sufficient claim for notability. -Colin Kimbrell 21:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep university-related topics are notable. Cynical 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN: I disagree that "university-related topics are notable" - I wouldn't write articles on every lecturer at the University of Cape Town, despite it being more widely accredited/recognised. --대조 | Talk 16:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge if he's so incredibly notable, into the page for the university...there is not enough notability to warrant an entire article on this guy. bcatt 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Devein 22:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per KillerChihuahua --kingboyk 23:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Subject is not very notable, but the article can still be of use if kept NPOV. For me, limited notability doesn't not automatically warrant deletion. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Notability is limited, but it's there; this isn't some guy writing about Joe Average for the hell of it. Again, not liking the institution has little bearing on the rest of it. Rogue 9 10:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Tired of this. Too much effort deleting and not enough creating or improving. --StuffOfInterest 12:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 16:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Unashamed keep Per reasons above. The guy has been working with this for 60 years! The guy's obviously notable and he needs an article. Too many are taking out more than they give. - 13:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini ^{lobster telephone}
• ^{Delete per nom. Doing something non-notable for 60 years does not make it notable. Postdlf 21:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Strong Keep--Hayson 21:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}

• ^{Delete. Similar reasons to Mike Randall article. If the articles can be improved to establish some notability I will reconsider. Andrewa 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{There have been no good reasons to delete Mike Randall. He's the president of a regionally accredited university, a pastor for 22 years, and a long-time editor of two publications. Please don't tell me that you are one of the ignorant ones still saying that his university is a diploma mill. --Jason Gastrich 05:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}

• ^{Delete. I don't see anything notable about provosts. Provost (education) doesn't mention any by name. At any rate, if there are any notable provosts, I'd presume that they would come from accredited state universities, or at least accredited, high-ranking private schools. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Keep (weak) per great gavini.the1physicist 23:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{weak keep baceuse it is part of an article series, but so short and quite uninformative, should be improven. Gubbubu 23:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}

• ^{DeleteJim62sch 02:13, 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)"}

^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)}

^{Comment: Itake, that is "meatpuppetry" at its finest. As for the complaints about the admin, we're right back to Argument by insinuation. I also received the same email, and frankly felt it was in bad faith--skirting the edges of honesty. Stow the complaints and cut the foul language. The article has been nominated: let the nomination take its course without raising personal issues. Justin Eiler 01:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{Meatpuppetry would be the user having all his friends register and then vote. ENLIGHTENING other wikipedian users about this problem is in no way meatpuppetry. The one who raised personal issues here was Cyde, accusing the author of using multies and cheating. That's bad, and it needs a counterreaction. There is nothing dishonest about that mail, not in one place does the author of the letter tell a lie or similar. He doesn't even tell, he doesn't even ENCOURAGE people to vote "Keep". Not meatpuppetry in any way, if you are going to continue accusing him of meatpuppetry you need to present a convincing argument for it. Otherwise it will only be a continuation of the lies and slander you people are already throwing the author. Itake 01:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{Dude, are you serious? What, precisely, do you think(?) this means? "I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries." Come on, dude, wake up and smell the, as you so aptly put it, bullshit. Jim62sch 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{To Itake: "Insinuating" ... this guy is shopping for votes calling those who want to delete the pages as people with "bad faith." Using Christ as a tool to get votes. Targeting those of religion with religion for keep votes. Arbustoo 03:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{Keep if not for the "diploma mill" for his other activities. --Vizcarra 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}

• ^{Delete Arbustoo 03:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete per nom. --Spondoolicks 20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete as this person does not meet WP:BIO. Cyde Weys 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete per nom. I wouldn't like to be the closing admin. Stifle 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Abstain with preference to merge. The article is very small & the article's subject is very unnotable. Although I would probably choose fixing rather than deletion, I have no real concern if it's delted or kept. I have no opinion. Therefore, I abstain. Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...}

^{The only reason so many Christian articles were nominated in a big batch like this is because they were all created by the same user in a short period of time, and on non-notable people (or at least not notable enough to need their own article, I do think that some should certainly be highlighted in the main article of the institution they are connected to). This seems to be done with the intention of promoting an institution that the user is affiliated with, and not because the subjects of the articles are actual notable enough to warrant a dedicated article. The fact that they are Christian is coincidence. I would get the same reaction if I suddenly decided to create a batch of articles for all the instructors who taught at the photography school I went to (granted, some of them are quite notable, but many are not notable enough to warrant a dedicated article). bcatt 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{I know this, but not many people are going to take that it was a "coincidence". As I've said, this could unlock a misunderstood-holy-wiki-war!!!! Omigosh batman!!!!! Spawn Man 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)}

^{Ugh...maybe I should take a break from my usual wikianderings and do a bunch of articles on my school and it's faculty and alumni just so many of those will also be voted for deletion, just so I can show that these deletions aren't religiously biased. The most ridiculous part is that the ones screaming religious bias are the ones creating religiously biased articles...it is no more wrong to want to delete an article because it is religious, than it is to want to create an unnecessary article for promotionally religious purposes - they are almost the same thing. Wikipedia is not the place to debate or try to prove which is the "one true religion", it is a place to describe all the different types of religion from a completely NPOV. bcatt 05:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)}

• ^{Delete per nom. Ashibaka tock 18:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)}

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

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

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

• ^{Strong Keep This is a perfectly viable encyclopedia article on a public institution that could very well be the subject of someone's research in the future. In such an event, wikipedia would come in handy. That is what wikipedia is for. I haven't heard a single good argument to why this should be deleted. Itake 15:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete: per nom. Justin Eiler 16:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete per nom. Hey, inclusionists, doesn't your philosophy want to keep content, or is it all about the number of articles? Do you also want to keep waste? -Harvestdancer 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Keep same as above. --Yonghokim 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Keep Per Itake Wynler 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Keep I see little reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Keep Salva veritate! Lerner 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete, per Colin Kimbrell. Sufficient notability for inclusion (as per WP:BIO) is not established within this article. Hall Monitor 18:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete 60 years in a field is definately long enough to make you notable for wikipedia... but he doesnt have anything in there that makes him pass the WP:BIO guidelines... sorry.  ALKIVAR™ 18:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Very Strong Delete. If people want to keep this article because he is a provost, I should point out EVERY DEPARTMENT in EVERY UNIVERSITY has a provost. So some schools have 70 people who are a provost. Thus, it does not make one notable by itself. This person has no notable qualities and does not meet Wikipedia criteria. Arbustoo 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Very Strong Delete - As per Arbutsoo. This guy is no more notable than the next, a provost? Come on! Just because he works at a university doesn't mean he's notable. I could reel off a crapload of people who lecture at my uni, and no, they're not notable. - Hahnchen 01:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete. University presidents are generally notable; provosts are not. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete per nom. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete - provost not notable, no cites given for further claims.--SarekOfVulcan 08:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Weak delete without any publications to his own name - there is insufficient assertion of notability for me --Doc ask? 15:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)}

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

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

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