Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to somewhere. But as Penya points out, this is not an AfD issue; AfD is for discussing deletion, and merges/redirects can be more usefully discussed on the respective talk pages. I will add a merge tag to the article, but will not bother to note this debate on talk. -Splash^talk 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suvadiva atoll

Suvadiva atoll , United Suvadive Republic, History of Suvadives and Suvadiva should all be merged into one article. All the other titles should be redirected. Also this article is somewhat misleading because it uses the map of current Gaafu Alif Atoll and Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll, or Huvadhu atoll and refer to it as Suvadiva atoll. Suvadiva atoll no longer exists and even if it did, it wasnt a one geographic atoll rather three geographic atolls. --Oblivious 14:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Merge. If merger is your goal, then AfD is not the place for this. Peyna 15:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, no merge. I agree that most every other one of them should be merged. History should be merged back until it's bigger, the three different spellings for the political entity too. However, the landmass deserves a separate article. gren グレン ^? 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I merged a bunch of them that needed to be merged (same content, etc.) but I do see it was just a historic name for another atoll or three. Not sure what to do. gren グレン ^? 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Suvadiva atoll separate, merge the others, per gren. What does "Suvadiva atoll no longer exists" mean? rodii 23:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it means that the name was used under a separatist movement... but now that the movement is gone it's called the other names already listed. gren グレン ^? 23:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • • Yeah... thats right --Oblivious 07:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Aha. OK, changing my vote to neutral. I bow to Oblivious's knowledge about this. He has done fine work on the Maldives here. rodii 00:07, 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 keep pending investigation of the unsupported allegation of copyright infringement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fall of the Ming Dynasty

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

• Comment I was going to try to see what was not copyvio... but I found the site was in Chinese characters and didn't see where the copyvio came from from googling a few parts of it. gren グレン ^? 17:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —WikiFanatic 02:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Dowling

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

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

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted under CSD A7 by Lucky 6.9

[edit] The Tipplin' Weigh

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

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

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

[edit] Ruby Archer

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

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

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

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

[edit] Shesca

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

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

[edit] Krawutschke Tower

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A7). Physchim62 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George and the Pirates

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

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

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

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

[edit] Tereza Kulata

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

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

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

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

[edit] Canadian Eagle Outfitters

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

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

[edit] Soundclick.com

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

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

I created the SoundClick article (and the Soundclick redirect) without realizing that there was already a Soundclick.com article. I apologize for the duplication. However you choose to merge the articles is fine by me. (BTW, the company's official name is SoundClick, Inc.) archola 12:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (I am also Vanilla Shadoe on SoundClick)

Thanks for the info. I would choose "SoundClick" as the article title since that is how the website (and presumably others) refers to use for itself. Contrast mp3.com, which is primarily known as "mp3.com" and not "mp3", and amazon.com, whose official company name includes the ".com". I wouldn't choose "SoundClick, Inc", as both articles are about the website, only mentioning the company. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-22 20:28Z

• Merge and redirect. This doesn't need to be on AFD. -- Jake 05:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted. - Mike Rosoft 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ess (test page) (originally titles Ess)

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

[edit] WarioWare, Inc. Revolution

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

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

[edit] Terence Laheney

Delete as a biography of a non-notable person. Deadsalmon 00:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Adriana of Antwerp

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

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

[edit] Munya 'David' Jumo

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

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

[edit] J. Otis Ledbetter

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 00:56, 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 05:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

---

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

Comment: There is no need to pepper your nomination with personal attacks and sarcasm. Furthermore, I didn't create all of the LBU alumni entries. Many were created long before I even came to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 05:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

At least 5 out of the 11 alumni on the LBU page were not written by me. --Jason Gastrich 10:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• ^{keep We can't delete people because books aren't that popular on amazon (this is just not relevant as a criteria) or the publishers aren't well known. bio can be verified and individual is arguably notable. Ginar 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Strong Keep This is a perfectly viable encyclopedia article on a public figure that could very well be the subject of someone's research in the future. In such an event, wikipedia would come in handy. That is what wikipedia is for. I haven't heard a single good argument to why this should be deleted. Itake 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Weak keep, his books aren't self-published from the looks of it, including one book published by the seminary press Multnomah. --badlydrawnjeff 14:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete per nomination --kingboyk 14:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Keep Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean he's not notable, and the sarcasm in the nom comes across as POV; his books make him notable, as Google shows. Walkerma 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{Keep, if the article in its current state is fairly accurate, then he's got enough to warrant inclusion. The issues about his quality of education can be addressed in an NPOV manner in the article. Peyna 15:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}
• ^{keep this is a compact, well-written article with sources and links, and a man with enough books, whether one thinks it is notable or not. Gubbubu 22:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)}

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

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

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

^{Assuming that you are addressing those remarks to me, here is the "some reason". - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/_[C] AfD? 10:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wiggins2

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Shannon systems

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Pack

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 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

---

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

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Very notable figure. --Jason Gastrich 01:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable vanity gastrich-cruft from a holder of a fake pHd from a diploma mill.Blnguyen 02:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley 03:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I should have nominated this one a few days ago with the others: a Google test reveals mostly stuff about a tech guy of the same name. A.J.A. 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. - WarriorScribe 06:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Marginally notable. Logophile 07:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ehhhh. Like the nomination says, it has to resort to some pretty obscure stuff to even make him stand out at all. KrazyCaley 07:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well-reasoned nom. This is almost borderline db-bio since nothing in the article asserts sufficient importance. Zunaid 08:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. I note this article's weaselling: "is read in 14" countries could easily mean a total of 14 people of different nationalities read it, etc.. Sliggy 13:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per JzG and Blngyuen --Deiz 13:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Some of these Gastrich articles I've voted to keep, but this one doesn't meet the WP:Bio criteria. Contrary to the nomination, I don't think the fact that he graduated from an unaccredited university matters for his notability. The problem is that he hasn't done enough to make him recognizable outside his circle. Publishing booklets isn't the same as publishing books. --Thunk 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nomination. --kingboyk 15:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Harvestdancer 17:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Per Thunk, however I lean towards inclusion. Wynler 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see little reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. PJM 17:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - NN Grimm 18:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete <300 Relevent Ghits MNewnham 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nominator, in line with Thunk's reasoning. Hall Monitor 21:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Spondoolicks 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep "with a listening audience of 250,000 people" I think that clearly qualifies as notablility.the1physicist 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment.Someone verify this claim. Does this make the stock-market-report guy on the 11.30pm news notable?Blnguyen 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Of course. If someone can prove the 250K figure is significantly inaccurate, let me know and I will reconsider my vote.the1physicist 14:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Pierremenard 05:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. I can't find anything on "Spirit of Prophecy" magazine. (There should be a weblink about it in the article anyway.) Furthermore, 250,000 people listen to him... On what show? It doesn't say. The burden of proof falls on the article editors and those who would wish to keep the article. I voted "Weak Keep" on the last Gastrich article, but this one is almost totally unverifiable. Grandmasterka 21:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete with preference to merge. Un notable, but would be great if he's merged....Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...

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

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

[edit] ThunderCS

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

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

[edit] Islam in Iceland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy DeYoung

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 01:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

---

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

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. First rate spam IMMHO. I particularly liked "he facilitates Christians to see where they are in God’s timetable and encourage them to ready themselves for Christ’s imminent return". Moriori 01:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vanity spam. I am seriously getting annoyed with Jason Gastrich's attempts to flood Wikipedia with articles of Christianity. I have nothing against Christianity, but he clearly knows that WP:VAIN takes priority. Yet, Jason relentlessly creates non-notable articles for his organization Wiki 4 Christ and refers others to influence the AfD votes, others who don't understand the entire situation. I suggest all of you take a good look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination) as well. Sycthos^Talk 02:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 02:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 02:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley 03:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn vanity diploma mill self awarded pHd. Blnguyen 04:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 05:16Z
• Keep. Notable enough. By the way, I do not know Jason Gastrich and have had no communication with him whatsoever. Neither am I directly involved with these people or their school, although I am vaguely familiar with some of them and with their work. Logophile 07:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He is somewhat more notable than a lot of the people on the LBU list, but I think he falls short. Such relatively obscure figure need, I think, a little less reliance on clique-cruft, thought some of the figures on the list, as in the Chuck Missler deletion debate, do seem to show themselves worthy. KrazyCaley 07:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep has tv and radio shows, interviewed international leaders, 500 google hits. Though needs severe editing to get rid of POV phrases like "As a result of this God-given desire of his heart". -- Astrokey44|talk 11:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as vanity. Who's joining me in Wiki4Satan? --Deiz 12:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If for no other reason than to show how much collective life religous zealotry sucks out of the world. --StuffOfInterest 13:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 20:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• As much as I didn't want to vote this way, keep. He has a syndicated radio program that reaches a number of states [10], and has done his thing worldwide. That's fairly notable for me. --badlydrawnjeff 14:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; while some of the claims to notability might warrant inclusion (best-selling author), I can not verify them. Peyna 16:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with the statement that the article needs editing, to better reflect NPOV, but he should be represented in a comprehensive encyclopedia -- the TV show "Day of Discovery" is shown every week on our CBS affiliate station, with him as a major contributor.[11]1diot 18:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Once again, folks, the stuff in the article is almost entirely unverifiable. The claims there are extremely non-specific, and the little bit about WNYM I haven't been able to verify. (The station has had several incarnations.) If someone can put SPECIFIC AND NOTABLE CLAIMS in the article that I can verify, let me know and I <might> consider changing my vote. Grandmasterka 21:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There may be a kernel of verifiable info in there somewhere but as the article stands it's hard to find. Crunch 22:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete unnotable. Arbustoo 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cyde Weys 02:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs a clean up, but I think we can do it without deleting it... Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...
  • 'I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same', 'Two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. ' As somebody who has voted to delete most of the nominated articles, I take great offence at that sweeping and hugely incorrect generalisation. I vote delete on issues of vanity, non-NPOV, non notability and sockpuppeteering and will continue to do so. --kingboyk 13:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Exactly my point. This shouldn't be about religion, only about what's best for wikipedia... Doesn't anyone actually read what I've written? Sigh..... Spawn Man 02:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --kingboyk 13:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Delete. DeYoung is unnotable and there are no sources to demonstrate that he meets Wikipedia standards of notability. Arbustoo 00:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am the user that put this bio up in the first place. Dr. DeYoung is a notable speaker. He is the cohost on Day of Discovery, which is a nation-wide show. He is heard on over 1000 radio stations in North America. He is a published author, a radio talk-show host, a television cohost , and, yes, an evangelist. I am not a sock-puppet of anyone. My name is Chad Smith - I haven't added a lot of stuff, that's true, but I'm a real person. If you check the links in the article, you'll see that the info is on the up and up. If you think the links have been put up to support a fake article, check the web archive for them. Dr. DeYoung has a large number of listeners, his web site gets tens of thousands of visitors per month. Just because you haven't heard of him, doesn't mean he's not notable. There are plenty of notable people in fields that are outside my interests that deserve to be on Wikipedia. The same is true for each of us. Dr. DeYoung is in the Pre-Trib Study Group that Tim LaHaye started, as in the coauthor of the Left Behind series. Is Tim LaHaye in the Wikipedia? Yes. Granted, Tim LaHaye has more mainstream success, but Tim LaHaye thinks enough of Dr. DeYoung to include his notes in the Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible, in which Dr. DeYoung's is cited as a contributor, and has an entire article included. His article is on page 973 and is entitled "Israel Today" if you'd like to go to a bookstore and check it out, and the list of contributors in the front shows that this is the same Dr. Jimmy DeYoung of Shofar Communications that I am referring to in this article. It may be true that this article should be cleaned up. It was my first addition of an article, and only the 3rd or 4th one I've worked on. But please don't remove it. I don't even know who this Jason person is. I've gone through it a little bit and tired to clean it up, and make it more acceptable for Wikipedia. I'm sure more work can be done, but I wanted to at least include some of the verification sources to help keep it on the Wikipedia. Chad78.

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

[edit] Bill Gothard

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 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't create this entry (just like the nominator said). Besides your word, what makes Gothard non-notable? --Jason Gastrich 07:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Arbustoo 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable within the fundamentalist Christian world as an activist for extreme right-wing values and as an accused cult leader. Admittedly a niche personality, but not an insignificant one. Haikupoet 04:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems notable enough. -- DS1953 ^talk 06:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Gothard is extremely notable for his seminars and teachings. He's been in the national news and is highly regarded in evangelical circles. --Jason Gastrich 07:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Gothard and the IBLP have had a major influence in Christian fundamentalist circles and beyond, since the 70s. While a merge would make things neater, we really need both articles just as Gandalf noted above. --DDerby-(talk) 16:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, much as would like to see more citations. This is notable enough. Grandmasterka 21:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, off you go. Stifle 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This guy has quite a web presence, news references, even a number of anti-Gothard campaigns, websites, etc. I don't support him or his ilk, but he is a considerable somebody in several circles. The fact that Jason Gastrich (or his ilk) promotes/advocates this article should have no bearing its appropriateness. If he (Gastrich) is abusing the system, I would support efforts to deal with his abuse. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Not just because I support him as a Christian, but also because he's well known.--ViolinGirl^♪ 13:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would a fan of John Piper support Bill Gothard? I don't understand. A.J.A. 00:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The guy is sure controversial, also among Christians, but that's doesn't make him not noteworthy, on the contrary. There has even a 380 page book been written about him: Veinot, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life which has 70 customer reviews at amazon.com and was worth an article for ChristianityToday. apologeticsindex.org gives him and his institute a whole page, rickross.com has an articles collection on him, So an article in Wikipedia is deserved but needs to be watched closely for NPOV. --Irmgard 00:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. Looking at the arguments without trying to perform a strict "vote count", I see that the arguments and consensus to keep or delete is roughly 50-50. The allegations of meatpuppetry and solicitation are serious, so I wouldn't be against a re-AfD, but only after taking a breather first. --Deathphoenix 14:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Missler

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 01:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

I am a Roman Catholic, but I have friends in Real Life and on USENET who are in the Calvary Chapel, and this guy is as notable among them as Chuck Smith or Greg Laurie. Even the Bible Answer Man is ordained in the C.C. Your suggestion that we go on a rat hunt to root out leaders who happen to ascribe to the Five Fundamentals is disturbing to say the least. Ruby 12:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall saying any such thing. What I said was, we have an apparent invasion of cruft. A walled garden of people who are important only to each other. I absolutely do not discount (including in this nomination, explicitly) the possibility that some of them may be notable outside that community, on the other hand there is good evidence that several of them are not, and this is no different to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam rooting out linkspam: the idea that just because someone is a Christian they won't abuse Wikipedia to push a POV or "sell" the product is naive. I am a Christian and if you see my user page you will see that I am quite open about my strong opinions. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 00:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"

---

Hello,

I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.

Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.

By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!

Sincerely,

Jason Gastrich

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, this does answer my question. If I didn't have inclusionist leanings, I would probably have voted to delete most of these. As it was, I voted to include this one since it seems more serious, and ignored the others. Lawrence King 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete This is in conclusion after looking at some of the behavior, and because of a 62% vote to delete (even without discounted votes). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Morey

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 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

---

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

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

lol. I haven't said lol in some time. Nonetheless, I find your criteria for inclusion quite amusing! --Jason Gastrich 07:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Right . . . because you're the Christian who wants to get rid of Christian entries on Wikipedia; even obvious keepers like Thomas Ice and Grant Jeffrey. Makes sense to people from outer space. --Jason Gastrich 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Wow, someone nominated Gothard for deletion. They must have been sniffing the same glue that the guy was sniffing who nominated Grant Jeffrey and Thomas Ice for deletion . . . just kidding. Kinda. --Jason Gastrich 07:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. We don't delete because an anon submitted an article, or because of POV problems. He certainly seems to be of interest to some people. Logophile 07:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What exactly is this guy notable for? NOTHING in the article seems like really encyclopedic info. Zunaid 09:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Notable figure with plenty of interesting, encyclopedic information that indicates he is notable. --Jason Gastrich 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep published author, referenced -- Astrokey44|talk 11:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable over-claiming preacher. Sliggy 13:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article still has a lot of POV, but some attempts are being made to offer balance and criticism. Seems to be part of a concerted campaign by a few editors to censor out a particular community. --StuffOfInterest 13:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, or perhaps merge to a larger Faith Defenders article. --badlydrawnjeff 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn --kingboyk 15:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable charlatan, with self-awarded-and-styled diploma mill degrees, of no academic worthiness and none relevant to poltics/theology overlap. Blnguyen 04:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Should part of this biography be blended into an article about California Biblical University and Seminary? Arbustoo 06:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Good job, this one actually has some citations. LBU "alumni": 4 "Weak Keep", 2 "Delete". Grandmasterka 21:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG, Gastrichcruft. Stifle 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and I agree...the way we keep having to accommodate for people of questionable credentials (and questionable morals) is troublesome for Wikipedia. - WarriorScribe 01:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cyde Weys 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Since it looks like this article is going to be deleted, I created an article about Morey's California Biblical University and Seminary Is this okay with everyone? Comments? Arbustoo 03:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If he's writen stuff then he should at least have a little slice of wikipedia? I mean, Wikipedia is huge, everyone can have a share can't they? Everyone thinks that because he isn't in the news, that he shouldn't be included in wikipedia, the so called "sum of all human knowledge". But how do we know he isn't influencial? He effects hundreds with his words..... Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...
• Delete - The problem with this is the lack of information given about his notability. Who published his "works"? Self published? Vanity press? I mean, how can you receive a phd in Islamic Studies from the Louisiana Baptist University? - Hahnchen 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, article is extensively cited and recent edits seem to help move it towards WP:NPOV. His works may be specialized, but I don't think it sets a good precedent to delete published authors because of the fields they write in. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Merge with California Biblical University. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete FeloniousMonk 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC) More Gastrichcruft

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by User:Alabamaboy —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 05:15Z

[edit] Unelfy

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

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

[edit] Lanfil Entertainment

Non-notable label. I refrained from speedying it because it did appear to assert notability. Google gave me nothing and it seems that an endeavor so new would be on the internet. Not a definitive test but, we do need evidence to the contrary. Remember to remove from List of independent record labels if deleted. gren グレン ^? 02:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Fry Mumia

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

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

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

Strawman argument -- didn't allege sockpuppetry based on similar point of view. Allegation is based on instantaneous syncophantic support on each other's talk pages, and the ganging-up without giving the article a chance to mature. Rather than delete it, edit it. That's the Wikipedia Way. Morton devonshire 16:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Comment: Not newly coined as alleged -- see the McCullagh photo cited above. Morton devonshire 16:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment I have redirected the page to Free Mumia Movement, in an effort to try to find some balance. My hope is that editors will discuss the political phenomenen which is the Free Mumia Movement, which is larger than the man himself and his case. Please help me to do this by removing the Afd and other tags. Thanks. Morton devonshire 05:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Vote still remains delete; the new page has even less info than the previous one. Really, any of this can just be put into Mumia Abu-Jamal until it gets too large and requires its own article. That's typically how this is done here. --Golbez 16:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Free Mumia Movement and see what can be made of it. Keep Fry Mumia as a redirect. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Mumia Abu-Jamal already covers the Free Mumia Movement and covers it's opposite in detail. Free Mumia Movement and Fry Mumia are not needed until/unless the main Mumia article becomes too large to manage. Peyna 17:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Mumia Abu-Jamal but with a caveat: Is this vote for Free Mumia or Fry Mumia? I came across the AfD at the top of the Free Mumia entry, yet it says Fry Mumia at the top of this page. If Free Mumia is a keeper, I think Fry Mumia should stay as well.-HroptR 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless, it's still a POV fork created because the author's attempt to add information to the original article was removed by the Mumia-protection-society. (i.e., it was created because the author was unable to get consensus for his addition to the main page). POV forks are not allowed, as per policy. Guettarda 23:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, a "merge" and / or redirect would be sufficient, in the name of saving some server space. Kmac1036 23:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable slogan. Also admittedly POV fork: POV forks are not permitted. Look, I live in Philly and am intimately aware of this case and the furor and the angst, nonetheless, the article needs to go. Jim62sch 23:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Populationx

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

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

[edit] Iadipaoliphobia

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

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

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Google test returned no hits. Sycthos^Talk 02:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as attack on Adam Ladipaolo [17] - User:Mbuc91 is a student at Covington Latin School; tagged. Also non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:39Z

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faces (software)

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

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

[edit] Alhazi Invasion

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was I'm gonna speedy delete this nonsense. It's a blatant attack page. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy muney

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

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PaulStintzi

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

• Speedy delete as vanity autobiography. Interesting content, but Wikipedia rules take priority. Sycthos^Talk 04:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete. --King of All the Franks 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable vanity biography (of the "I've never kissed a girl" variety). Tagged as {{nn-bio}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:27Z
• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:30, 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 DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruiner

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

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

[edit] Drus

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

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

[edit] Solomon Prower

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

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

Merge per Quarl. --Terence Ong 05:20, 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 keep as no consensus to delete. Ifnord 00:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SuperOffice

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

• Well of course I think it should be a keep. We don't delete articles about companies with this kind of turnover without a very good reason. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. KrazyCaley 03:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• I vote Keep because it seems notable compared to other articles we have. Note however that this company does not meet WP:CORP which says a ranking such as Forbes 500 would qualify but just being publicly traded would not; and I couldn't find any media coverage. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:10Z
  • I agree that it isn't in the Forbes 500, but if that's the reason why we're deleting articles about companies like this, then the guideline is wrong and should be ignored until somebody comes up with a more reasonable one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The Forbes 500 is an annual listing of the top 500 AMERICAN companies produced by Forbes Magazine. I have no idea if this particular company is American or not, but why are we basing notability on an American list in the first place? Your average Venezualan company (it seems to me) are likely to fail simply because they dont appear on this list? Or am I reading this all wrong? Jcuk 09:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I said "such as Forbes 500". I did my research; I know it is a Norwegian company and I know Forbes is American. If I had said "it is not in the OSEBX" I doubt it would be nearly as widely understood compared to saying "such as Forbes 500". —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 09:38Z
        • I never heard of the "Forbes 500" before today. I aint signed in so I'll sign manually. Jcuk
• Delete as not encyclopedic. Yay, they sell some stuff. They fail WP:CORP which actually represents the consensus opinion of a whole lot of editors. I don't see any evidence of citations in media as being at all notable. Always happy to change my mind if some actual evidence presented, but please spare us any further rhetoric. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • They seem to sell a LOT of stuff from what I can find, so I think they're far from irrelevant, and them seem to satisfy WP:CORP in my own humble opinion. Still, I most definitely agree that we need to see some resources. KrazyCaley 07:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm always happy to change my mind: how do thay satisfy CORP? The only thing I can even see as a possible stretch is the "multiple published works" and that says " non-trivial". - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Here you go. Partnering with Microsoft, announcement made by Microsoft's CRM industry manager [18], and here's the partner page on Microsoft's website [19]. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • There are thousands of these, and that they are submitted by the company themselves. Please note the little text at the bottom: "The inclusion of a solution does not imply endorsement of Microsoft of the solution." This is advertising.
        brenneman^(t)(c) 07:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Read the press release. Those words you are reading in quotes are from Microsoft's CRM manager, not SuperOffice. Microsoft is an active partner in the deal. SuperOffice and Microsoft jointly market solutions involving a combination of SuperOffice and Microsoft products. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, Tony, you're incorrect here. I can speak with some authority when I say that anyone can be a Microsoft partner, and wethey don't have to participate at all. Avriette 00:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Avriette, I've cited a press release in which Microsoft's own CRM manager actively promoted SuperOffice. It may be generally true that this is a passive relationship, but in this case there is activity on both sides. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And another partnership deal: customers who buy SAP's BusinessOne product in Norway automatically get SuperOffice. SAP Norge chose it as their CRM module [20]. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but expand it soon.--MONGO 06:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Significant enough in a Norwegian context. Choalbaton 07:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: more confusion between encyclopedic and notable. Can we do some research and find out what the Norwegian equivalent of this Forbes 500 would be? I'm assuming this is something like the FTSE 100? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • FTSE is London; this company is on Oslo. No way a company with market cap < 100 million USD is on a stock index. (The #100 company on FTSE 100, Yell Group, has market cap of 7 billion USD.) The WP:CORP criteria are VERY high, I doubt half the companies that currently have Wikipedia articles meet it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 11:54Z
    • Actually, the WP:CORP criteria are quite low. Any kind of independent published works will do, as long as they are more than simple directory listings or incidental mentions. Items sourced from the company itself, such as its press releases or things published by the company on its own web site, don't count, however. Uncle G 12:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • ... so this SuperOffice FAQ written by a reseller counts, albeit that it is about the product, not the company. Uncle G 13:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I suggest that if our guidelines exclude a company listed on the Norwegian Stock Exchange with an appreciable known turnover, they're probably rather too restrictive. I agree that there's little in the way of independent literature about this company, but that is not to say that it is negligible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Only editors who haven't actually read our guidelines in the first place would think that our guidelines contain any such exclusions. Editors who have read our guidelines will have read footnotes #4 and #6 to them, conversely. Editors who approach Wikipedia from the direction of "Wikipedia should include individual articles for all companies with turnover X/that are traded on Y" will find Yellowikis or some other directory of companies more in line with their goals. I strongly recommend instead the approach of actually performing research to find non-trivial independently sourced published works, of the sort that Sam Vimes has below. Uncle G 15:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as it seems reasonably notable enough to me. If it fails WP:CORP, then I'll suggest that WP:CORP is too restrictive. InkSplotch^(talk) 14:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per brenneman. No evidence presented that this company meets any of the recommended inclusion standards at WP:CORP. Press releases and sales literature (whether by the company itself or any reseller) do not count as verifiable evidence. Rossami (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WP:CORP is the opinions of a handful of editors not policy. Such oversimplified notability guidelines shouldn't trump common sense. older ≠ wiser 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you suggesting that Rossami and I have no common sense. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The irony of that baseless argument is that this company satisfies the "oversimplified notability guidelines", as pointed out below by editors who actually took the tack of addressing the subject of the article and performing some research to see whether it satisfied the guidelines, rather than the tack of attacking the guidelines themselves and simply assuming that the company would fail to satisfy them without apparently putting any effort at all into checking that. Uncle G 15:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, publicly listed companies are of interest to readers. Kappa 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As mentioned on deletion review a company with only 180 employees someone would have to present some serious evidence that it is an influential company beyond being listed on an exchange. (apparently it's a lot easier to go public in Norway, I don't think 30 million in revenue would get you very far on a larger exchange.) My back of the envelope calculation is with only 500 million people in the world workforce there would be 2.7 million potential companies this size. That is certainly not feasible nor a good use of our time currently to have articles on companies that size. - Taxman ^Talk 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Obviously there aren't 2.7 million software companies with wholly owned subsidiaries in half a dozen European countries, selling into the US market and securing nationwide franchise agreements with the likes of SAP. The reason I bring this up now is Jimbo's recent WikiEN-L comment about this kind of AfD phenomenon: [21] So you haven't heard of them and you wrote some numbers on the back of an envelope. Is it possible that your numbers aren't the whole story? Why do we want to delete this? By my calculation there are at least one billion potential boy groups with four members, but we're not stampeding to delete the article about The Beatles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No but being a software company matters not. The beatles have easily documentable wide ranging influence. Next. - Taxman ^Talk 08:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Again you're being dismissive, ignoring the company's SAP Norge franchise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Look I don't have an ax to grind here, it wouldn't be the end of the world if we kept this (or deleted it). Your innapropriate repeated undeletion out of process is besides the point of whether this should be kept. I just don't see how it makes sense to have an article on a company so small and with no verifiably significant influence. And wtf is a SAP Norge franchise (the article doesn't say) and why would it matter?. - Taxman ^Talk 18:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
      • See SAP AG; it's an absolutely huge software house that specialises in workplace software integration. The franchise means that every company that licenses SAP's Business One product in Norway (the agreement is with SAP Norge) automatically gets SuperOffice. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • By my reading of what is actually written above, nowhere did Taxman base xyr argument on the assertion that xe hadn't heard of it. That argumentum ad Jimbonen is a straw man. Uncle G 15:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. For the policy-sticklers, they meet criterion one of WP:CORP: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself., by significant and regular coverage in the Norwegian business paper Dagens Næringsliv [22] [23] [24], and in the leading Norwegian web-only business news source, imarkedet.no [25]. Sam Vimes 14:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added these to the article. InkSplotch^(talk) 18:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An obvious keeper as a major Norwegian listed company with thousands of customers. -- JJay 18:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete. Move content to no:SuperOffice. Avriette 00:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' With thousands of customers I am sure this is notable to someone.--God of War 05:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This rather small computer company is vitually unknown, even in Norway, and it receives almost no media attention whatsoever. Just being on the Oslo Stock Exchange does not make it more significant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What are those things Sam Vines linked to? Kappa 09:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Dagens Næringsliv is a business newspaper, so just about any company would be mentioned in it some time or another. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think being covered in a business newspaper is enough to exclude tiny companies which no significant number of people care about, so WP:CORP is doing its job. Kappa 10:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, you have convinced me. Does meet the WP:CORP guidelines so Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Guettarda 21:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• It's amusing to see some editors criticising the "oversimplified notability guidelines" when this company actually satisfies the primary WP:CORP criterion. It's saddening to see that some editors think that locating independent secondary sources and adding them to articles is something that they only need to do in extreme cases, to satisfy "policy sticklers". The coverage presented by Sam Vimes appears to be non-trivial and not sourced from the company itself. Although it is not really in-depth coverage, such as can be found for Hewlett-Packard, with the additional support of the aforementioned FAQ this company appears to satisfy the primary WP:CORP criterion. Keep. Uncle G 15:52, 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. -Splash^talk 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goughism

nn Neoleigsm or dic-def, 332 goggle hits, from mostly wiki mirrors [26], what's worst is this page survived more than a year without being discovered Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. I'll get her tickets to what she needs simply makes no sense. Sycthos^Talk 03:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable - no Google hits. If verified could merge without redirect to Badly Drawn Boy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:00Z
• Delete nn. Fagstein 06:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Quarl. --kingboyk 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsen per nom. --Lockley 21:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom--Bob 00:49, 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. -Splash^talk 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sportsdot

Purely non-notable weblog, no alexa rank [27] for a site that been running for more than a year. Fails WP:WEB Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable website. Could xlink from slashclone if it were slightly notable but lack of Alexa rank makes it completely non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 03:58Z
• Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 03:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Fagstein 06:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Bob 00:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP I vote keep. Alexa rank is a good indicator of the masses traffic, but aren't most sophisticated users blocking Alexa by now? 17:23 January 24 (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. Ifnord 00:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tally Solutions Ltd

Bangalore-based Accounting software company that is one of two or three giants, and probably the leader of those, in its home market. Numbers among its customers half a dozen illustrious names including two auto companies, the Reserve Bank of India, and the Indian software giant Infosys. Fairly well known in the UK market, also sells into the Middle East and Far East.

I undeleted this a couple of days ago after what I regarded as an inadequate AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tally_(accounting). The reason to delete was that it looked like an ad and the company had less than 500 google hits. Well that's silly but the article did need overhauling, which I've done.

I'm relisting this because there seems to be some concern about my unusual action in resurrecting a deleted article.

• Obviously keep. We don't delete articles about this kind of company without a very good reason. Wikipedia isn't some silly bloody game, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. KrazyCaley 03:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony Sidaway, though the article could some more editing/NPOV. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 03:56Z
• Delete as not encyclopedic. Article did get a nice couple of paragraphs in an eleven page article in Wired ten years ago... but anything else? I'm not seeing evidence that is satisfies WP:CORP, and the use of the words "The company claims to have..." are sending up some serious WP:V warning flags to me. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: maybe you should check out the definition of encyclopedic, since I suspect that you are confusing it with the oft-misued term notable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • They won the PCQuest User's Choice award for Accounting software ten years in succession[28]. I think they won the 2004 award, too, making it eleven. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but expand soon.--MONGO 06:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Easily important enough to keep. Choalbaton 08:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: even I've heard of this one. Why do I get the impression that some people like using {{afd}} rather than {{cleanup}} and {{npov}}? —Phil | Talk 09:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no reason not to -Doc ^ask? 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Doc, because he's my first edit conflict :) InkSplotch^(talk) 14:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And because I don't think WP:N == Popular. InkSplotch^(talk) 14:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per brenneman. Take it to yellowikis if need be. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:02, Jan. 20, 2006
• Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:CORP #1. --Fastfission 17:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. older ≠ wiser 18:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough media awards here to support inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Tintin Talk 00:02, 25 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caroline Bilodeau

According to the link at the bottom of the page, the primary source for this story is the National Enquirer. No notability asserted besides her alleged relationship to Kennedy. Delete. SarekOfVulcan 03:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Ted Kennedy. News sources such as New York Daily News are reporting on National Enquirer's claim: [29] [30], so the information is significant to Ted Kennedy; subject by herself not notable enough her own article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 03:51Z

• Delete assuming paternity test results and/or a confession is not forthcoming from Ted. I see no current firm evidence for the article (or her story) being true aside from circumstantial and mostly unusable related data (Teddy's previous scandals, for example). I can tell the media that I fathered George W. Bush, but that does not make it true without factual evidence. ;) → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The paternity connection to Kennedy is pure speculation. She is not notable otherwise. Crunch 07:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Obvious keep. Dwain 19:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until it is proven for a fact. There are too many "real stories" in tabloids to have articles on them. Renata 10:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteas non-notable. Not because of validity (the Enquirer has a checkered past but tends to be more credible than people think). Ifnord 14:55, 25 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. -Splash^talk 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual underground

One line substub on Non-notable message board, not sure if it's a speedy though so I'm placing it here. Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as forumcruft. --King of All the Franks 03:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable web forum. Can't tell how many users since it's only one of MANY GameSpot forums. 27,615 total posts (not notable at all). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 03:46Z
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 05:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable web forum. --TBC 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable web forum. --Bob 00:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn forum incog 19:04, 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 no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS ONLY DEFAULTS TO KEEP. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD ALONE AS A REASON TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER. Johnleemk | Talk 15:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wbjb

Original Research, Personal Essay on a Small non-notable community college radio station, This is not a article Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. This would be good with some valid citations.KrazyCaley 03:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Slight merge to Brookdale Community College. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:25Z
• Keep FCC-licensed radio stations (Query the FCC's FM station database for WBJB), though this article needs massive paring down and de-POVing. Also move to WBJB for proper capitalization. Haikupoet 04:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep after massive clean up. See: http://www.wbjb.org/ Renata 10:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn original research. incog 18:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Quarl. Ifnord 14:57, 25 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mariposa, Rio Rancho, New Mexico

Looks like crystal ball on some houses that are going to be built in the future, WP:NOT a crystal ball Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Sycthos^Talk 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. South Bay, Boston, Massachusetts, a 10-acre "planned bunch of houses" was kept by consensus. This is a 6500-acre planned bunch of houses with 15,200 Ghits for mariposa "rio rancho". Fight systemic bias. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:44Z
• Keep Major development and the future event tag covers any uncertainty. Choalbaton 08:03, 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 Speedy Delete. BJAODN --Madchester 04:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Chuck Norris

Delete this piece of idiocy. Not funny enough for BJAODN. Dbtfz 04:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not even vaguely encyclopedic. --W.marsh 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. I got 2 edit conflicts while posting this.... Sycthos^Talk 04:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. "Church of chuck norris" seems to be something made up in one school day, from references to World of Warcraft forums. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:23Z

• Speedy delete complete rubbish. Grandwazir 04:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Sycthos. --Hansnesse 04:27, 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. -Splash^talk 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shorindokai Karate

While this claims to be a fighting style, all I can figure out is that it's the name of a karate business in South Carolina [31]. Doesn't really seem to be documented or covered anywhere meaningful. Information is sparse and meeting WP:V (with good sources) seems to be difficult. --W.marsh 04:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable fighting style. The article blatantly states that Shorindokai Karate is "a blended fighting style developed by Master Instructor gary ownes of Greenville, South Carolina." Sycthos^Talk 04:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable/unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:20Z
• Delete 128.100.33.138 17:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Punchcruft. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article contains POV material - other martial arts are about point scoring? No Karateka or Jujutsuka that I know trains for sport. It also fails to properly define the subject of the article - what are the 'best points' of Shotokan and Jujutsu that are 'blended' to produce the hybrid style? Delete to save the confusion of all readers.  (aeropagitica)  21:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I like to think that I know enough about martial arts to be an expert, and I've never heard a thing about this. Efforts to look it up don't seem to support its notability (or reality). KrazyCaley 23:31, 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 DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Save Our State, The Real Story

Save Our State is trying to get around the NPOV editing that is going on in the real Save Our State Entry- they want a wikipedia that they alone edit that is "the truth"- aka from their perspective only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elzia (talk • contribs)

• Delete. Forked off of Save Our State. Evil saltine 04:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as duplicate. Sycthos^Talk 04:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:19Z
• Delete as POV fork as per nomination. — CJewell (talk to me) 04:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. Save Our State is protected while editors come to consensus. Other editors are invited to pitch in. Cheers, Will Beback 05:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 05:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork in clear violation of policy. FCYTravis 08:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eesh... Grandmasterka 09:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a POV fork. JIP | Talk 09:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete completely forked. BL kiss the lizard 09:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Save Our State, a semi-literate racist's perspective -- GWO
• Delete: POV Dynayellow 12:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Any time the word "Real" shows up in a title I'm likely to be suspicious. --StuffOfInterest 14:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT Delete. This entry is a reaction to the vandalizing of the first SOS article that was initially posted by the same author. To most prudent people, this article was informative and worth being here. What ever happend to wiki articles being informative and neutral? I found it both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.148.142.231 (talk • contribs)
• Delete as unnecessary fork. The POV issues in the original article should be resolved instead.KrazyCaley 23:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Evilsaltine. BTW, the user who voted against deletion claims that "the first SOS article that was initially posted by the same author", which is untrue. Check the history and you'll find that the first version was a POV stub, and the rest of the language (with minor exceptions) is MINE. Not that I'm possessive or anything 8).--Rockero420 00:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; POV fork; always delete POV forks. Antandrus (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. Calling themselves a civil rights organization is absurd, as well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant violation of WP:FORK. Cyde Weys 05:21, 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 Patti Newton, and probably NO CONSENSUS on Lauren. -Splash^talk 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Newton and Patti Newton

All the information I believe to be true, but I do not think that it is sufficient to be notable simply because her father Bert Newton is a TV icon/institution and she is engaged to swimming star Matthew Welsh. As for her mother Patti Newton, there is little claim of notability, aside from being in a lot (unspecified) theatre productions, and that she was on her husband's show (in what role??)Blnguyen 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Patti Newton, as she is a well-known Australian television identity. I'll abstain on Lauren. Cnwb 06:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lauren. Nn IMDB entry]. --Perfecto 06:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Patti Newton, while it is a stub she is fairly well known in Australia. Since I wrote the Lauren Newton article I would prefer it stays, however if Lauren is believed to not be important enough I will not make a fuss. Matthew kokai 08:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Patti, redirect Lauren to one of her parents.--nixie 02:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • May I know the reason that a wikilink to a woman should forward to her parent? --Perfecto 02:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: -- FWIW, Lourdes Ciccone, whilst not yet a woman, was brought to VFD, with the result being her article redirected to her more notable mother, Madonna. I think redirecting to one parent and not the other though is presenting a POV. -- Longhair 09:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both. Whilst Lauren may not be as big as her parents, she still has celebrity status. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• New information The Herald Sun today reported that Lauren may move to Channel 9. Sources say that auditioning for the weekend weather reported role. Matthew kokai 07:30, 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 speedy delete. Mushroom 13:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ali malik

High school football players are usually not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Rhobite 04:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn highschool football player --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 05:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "only God knows" seals it for me. Nateji77 05:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 05:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable biography; tagged as {{nn-bio}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:41Z

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to RuneQuest; I'm going to hold on to the redirect as is usual in these cases. -Splash^talk 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broo

According to the one page that links to it, this is the only species from RuneQuest (RPG) that has its own page. The RuneQuest page is not that long itself. So merge there or just out and out delete. pfctdayelise 04:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. there's a lot of information there we really dont need. if the RuneQuest page mentions Broos it can do so a lot more succintly. Nateji77 05:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge without Redirect. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:40Z
• Merge with Redirect --Bob 00:51, 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. -Splash^talk 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space Crabs

Non-existant as far as I can see. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverified. Sycthos^Talk 04:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverified Jawz 04:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 05:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, unverifiable. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:39Z
• Delete as a crap joke. JIP | Talk 09:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a crab joke. Barbara Osgood 18:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please Delete this is a joke i made up during a recent space holiday. Whilst it is factually untrue the details mentioned are worthy of further investigation. (Paulo Fontaine 12:47, 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 Redirected. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dayboy

Dic Def Move to Wikinary if it's not there and Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Move to Wiktionary per nominator. Sycthos^Talk 04:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Uncle G. Sycthos^Talk 17:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Move to Wiktionary per nom. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 05:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per Uncle G. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 15:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki/Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:39Z
• Deletion is not the answer. Following the procedure in Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is the answer. Redirect to day pupil. Uncle G 12:06, 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 speedy delete. Mushroom 13:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iadipaoligize

WP:HOAX. Unverifiable (no Google hits). Possibly construable as attack page. Article creator also created Iadipaoliphobia (AfD discussion) and other already-speedied nonsense/attack pages. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 04:44Z

• Delete as nonsense.Blnguyen 05:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• If it's not a hoax, it's still speedy delete as per WP:MUSIC. "They have as of yet made no songs but are currently working on the following titles..." Lukas 10:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Tagged as {{nn-band}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 11:48Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom 13:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Thomas Howard

Suspected nn-bio / vanity. Page was created by User:Johnhoward68. Google results are too littered with other John Thomas Howards to ascertain validity Cnwb 05:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. looks like a misplaced user page rather than deliberate vanity. author may want to userfy. Nateji77 05:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it. Kill it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.236.29 (talk • contribs)
• Delete (or Userfy), nnvbio. Tagged as {{nn-bio}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:38Z

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duy Nguyen

I have grave doubts about the notability of this person, or if he even exists(hoax?). Presuming he was 12 at the audition, then that would be at least 1977 +12 = 1989 when the show happened, not 1988. IMDB shows a 1991 production by the ABC in Australia, which on the credit list does not give this person. Google for "Duy Nguyen" and actor yields some pages in the US, but for Australia only, the hits aren't for this guy.Blnguyen 05:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: finders seekers circa 1989 cited here. Nateji77 05:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:37Z
• Delete. --Roisterer 11:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. Renata 10:33, 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. -Splash^talk 00:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Mazzella Jr.

Although I just wikified this a bit, I'm still nominating it. Dying in a famous event does not in and of itself make one notable. pfctdayelise 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as 'not a memorial', or merge to Cantor Fitzgerald L.P.. - squibix 17:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with/to Cantor Fitzgerald L.P. He seemed to hold a pretty large title in a company that meets WP standards, but it does seem a bit over the top to give him his own page.
• Delete per nom. Don't merge to Cantor Fitzgerald L.P. because that article does not include listings of former dead employees. Non evidence that he was notable enough to warrant a separate article. An argument cuold be made for a separate Effect of 9/11 Attack on Cantor Fitzgerald L.P article but until then, delete. Crunch 16:26, 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 NO CONSENSUS. I'll move it as suggested, though. -Splash^talk 23:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nasir Bin Olu Dara

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this LP doesn't even have a label to release it yet. Nas is my favorite rapper and all, but this should probably be deleted until the record's existence becomes a little more concrete. FuriousFreddy 05:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:36Z
• Keep although Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Nas did mention some details about the album officially, thus concluding that there is a chance for release of the album (after all, I doubt that the artist of the album doesn't know anything about it). It would be unnecessary to delete the page until Nas calls it off. --I Am Ri¢h! 02:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Changed vote to Redirect. --I Am Ri¢h! 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a chance, yes, but it's not a definite one just yet. It'd probably be better to redirect the album title to Nas (rapper) until Nas figures out who he is going to sign with. --FuriousFreddy 18:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, I can agree to that. In this case, I will now change my vote to Redirect. --I Am Ri¢h! 23:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this because as of today Nas has signed with Def Jam and developments on this album will be coming soon. Nas has mentioned details about this album already therefore it is not "unverified" information. If you want to delete pages because of speculation then delete pages about the Illuminati and other whacked conspiracy theories and leave this alone. --B-Raff
• Comment Since the album finally has a label to release, I don't suppose the page needs to be deleted or redirected anymore. I do, however, think that the article needs to be moved to the proper captialization of its title -- that is, Nasir bin Olu Dara -- once the AfD proceedings are over. --FuriousFreddy 02:42, 25 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. -Splash^talk 23:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amman Model Arab League

An article about Model Arab League would be notable (if it existed). However, a standalone MAL event is probably not. Punkmorten 12:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• keep - there is a MAL, and it's an American event, the AMAL has been publicsized by the Jordanian embassy, so thats notable enough for me. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, at least. Stifle 00:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic, nn, and unverifiable to boot. Eusebeus 20:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Bob 00:52, 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. -Splash^talk 23:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Hunter

Delete: Apparently self-written vanity page for not-yet-noteworthy film production assistant/self-published novelist. Tverbeek 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity page for non-notable writer. See WP:BIO. Recommend the author see WikiMe for writing autobiographies. Stifle 23:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Notability claims are internships and such. IMDB lists him as "miscellaneous crew" with job titles of "assistant", "secretary", etc. His book is unverifiable/not-notable (not on Amazon, etc). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:34Z
• Weak keep Weak delete - his notability all comes down to the book. It is widely available, including on Amazon (first Google result). I don't know how we can possibly tell, but it may well be in the ballpark of the 5000 sales recommended by WP:Notability (people). ×Meegs 10:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops! —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 11:08Z
  • Listing on Amazon is not inherently notable; all that takes is buying an ISBN. And for what it's worth, his article for the book was just deleted. Tverbeek 12:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I changed my vote above. Of course anything can get on Amazon; the important piece of information is that the book is self-published (with a company named Author House). You'd mentioned that in the nomination, but I missed it. By the way, here is the book's AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navy Blue Eyes. ×Meegs 12:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; nn self-published author. MCB 02:34, 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 KEEP. -Splash^talk 23:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FlashGet (second nomination)

non-notable download manager, also give advices to getting rid of advertisements without paying the shareware software --Melaen 21:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlashGet —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-15 03:20Z

• Keep, seems notable, at least as much as most of the other download managers with entries in Category: Download managers. Else merge to Download manager. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-15 03:17Z
• I've cleaned up the article [32]. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-15 03:27Z
• Weak delete as non-notable. Stifle 23:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert Incognito 06:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Plug: Please come develop a guideline for articles such as this: see Wikipedia:Notability (software) --Perfecto 06:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on principle. Even though I feel that FlashGet is popular and well-known enough to be written about, this article is just about empty and reads somewhat like an ad. Zunaid 09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's widely-used software, and had a lot of support in AFD six months ago. Seem like more than an advertisement to me, esp. after Quarl's treatment. ×Meegs 10:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have a philosophical problem with relists purely for the sake of taking another shot. If there's something new, thats one thing. in this case, still seems all the original AfD arguments can apply. (sorry, forgot to sign in) Phantasmo 14:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known download manager. See also FlashGot, the Firefox plugin (which you shouldn't think about nominating for deletion either). Rhobite 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as it is a well-known and widely used software. Carioca 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cleanup if it sounds like an ad. FCYTravis 05:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as it's reasonably well-known software, but definitely improve the article. If it remains in its current form, it's hardly encyclopaedic and should be deleted. - Axver 08:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as rather notable piece of software. I don't think it was the first "download accelerator" but it was probably the first to get it right. Its Site Explorer feature was very good, too. Cyde Weys 05:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known, been around a while. Article could be improved, but deletion certainly won't do that. -- Jake 05:44, 25 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. Yeah, I see it's a copyvio, but the debate here is obvious enough, and it shows no sign of gettng permission during the CV process. -Splash^talk 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital management

I proposed moving this article to Wikibooks on January 8. No feedback since then, so I moved it there. It's original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Tim Pierce 05:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:32Z
• Delete per Quarl -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. I tagged this with a db-copyvio speedy and blanked the content, since it is copied from a commercial content provider that is selling the material online for $26.28 plus tax. That sort of thing needs to be dealt with quickly. MCB 02:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, the speedy did not stick due to the 48-hour rule, so I listed it for non-speedy copyvio. MCB 02:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I didn't list it as a copyvio in the first place because the original poster of the material appears to be the author. Tim Pierce 04:56, 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. The diff in which Quarl merges is [33], but I can't see that material having come from this article in any revision before Quarl's edit. (Also, very small fragments of text are not generally copyrightable anyway.) -Splash^talk 23:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proprietary open source

Neologism/original research.

• Delete. Nominator. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Open-source software, where I have merged a sentence. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:30Z
• Delete, but put a mention of the term and a link to Peren's paper in dual license. scot 15:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Rhobite 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Also, article doesn't really make any sense. Haikupoet 04:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, The article doesn't warrant existence even as a redirect. It's not a commonly used term even in the "open source" community, likely because it is ambiguous or with no clear definition if any. --Ashawley 20:59, 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. -Splash^talk 23:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EyeSore Angels

Appears to be a vanity page for a band. Not quite speedy deletion material I think. Nothing links to it besides this AFD discussion. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:43, Jan. 20, 2006

• Delete as non-notable-music. No AMG entry. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:23Z
• Delete as non-notable-music. --Bob 00:53, 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. -Splash^talk 23:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Home Wrestling Federation

Does not assert notability, poorly organized. Well-nigh indecipherable in parts. --zenohockey 05:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Not much to find via Google. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:22Z
• Delete per above. Essexmutant 12:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Poorly written article, but the topic might be of interest to some. No need to delete verifiable information just because only a few people will ever find and read it. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 23:16, 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. An unusually clear debate for this kind of topic. -Splash^talk 23:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient persecution of non-Jews by Jews

See reasons on Talk:Ancient persecution of non-Jews by Jews that reflect a consensus that this article is a POV attempt at "blame the victim" racism. It is also full of shoddy original research, citing "examples" from vaguely "Jewish" groups in Yemen and Africa. In sum, this short sorry excuse for an article is pathetic and should never have been allowed to exist this long. IZAK 05:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC) IZAK 05:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Rachack 16:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete IZAK 06:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and also for being flame/hate bait. That said I think an article on persecutions by Old Testament era Judah or Israel could be appropriate.--T. Anthony 06:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - what's the argument for deleting the article? The article is just fine and it provides sources. Why call it pathetic? --Candide, or Optimism 06:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Candide: Simple, it's full of garbage, not worthy of an encyclopedia. IZAK 09:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My reasons would be slightly different. The article as written is a nonsensical bunch of largely rumored statements, but that's an argument for improvement not deletion. However this doesn't merit the effort to improve it for several reasons. For starters virtually all persecution by Jews, and here's where I part company with many here as I think there probably was some, occurred in ancient times that are hard to verify. We don't deal with ancient religious persecutions because of that and because no one had an idea of religious freedom then. I know some prefer to believe that in pre-Christian times everyone was tolerance and sweetness, but in reality most empires or kingdoms punished those who rejected the official or civic religion. I don't see any reason to think the Jewish kingdoms of ancient times were any worse, or also enough better, to merit any special attention on this. Also I don't entirely approve of any of these "persecution by" articles as there a recipe to say "Aren't XYZ terrible!" and heap on. Lastly it really is non-notable and an opener to a hate-fest as mentioned.--T. Anthony 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • • Ancient Persia was tolerant and allowed people to worship whatever they wanted. They were too tolerant, if you ask me. Rome was, for the most part, also tolerant, but they also required that you sacrifised to the Emperor. It doesn't matter if sources from ancient times cannot be verified as well as other sources. They are sources and Wiki allows those sources to be used. If those sources would not qualify, then we would have very few articles about the ancient world. But, as usual, when it comes to criticizing Jews, it is not allowed; what is allowed is to say how Jews were persecuted. Yeah, okay, I got it. It's quite obvious that you guys are organizing yourself on Wiki. I've noticed this on RfCs and I've noticed this here. You message fellow Jews to support your side. --Candide, or Optimism 06:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I'll give you Persia, mostly. However Shapur II of Persia and a few other Sassanids persecuted religious minorities. I won't give you Romans because this is one of those "polytheists are wonderful" mythos. By their own admission Romans desecrated other faiths on conquest, drove people to genocide, and punished religions that could not reconcile or syncretize with the Roman pantheon.--T. Anthony 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What about treatment of non-Jews and Jewish heretics under traditional Jewish law, for instance? What about treatment today of those brought up as Orthodox Jews who then cease their observation of Jewish law? Has there been any systematic analysis of this? The Shulchan Aruch states that if a close relative dies who was a heretic, then rather than observing the normal week of mourning, one should wear white clothes and celebrate the end of an enemy of God. Doesn't this deserve mention somewhere (along with the fact that this prescription is rarely observed, and the question of what exactly a "heretic" is)? This is a perfectly reasonable topic to write about, an interesting subset of Jewish history. The current content is probably lousy, but the topic is fine. Work it out, don't just delete it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't oppose any and all articles concerning periods or movements within Judaism that are more militant/persecuting. However what you're talking about is largely fights within Jewish culture.(Who is Jewish, how do you treat "heretics", etc) What concerns other things I think can be dealt with in other ways. Perhaps something on the Jewish kingdoms or on debates among Jewish people. This is too open to abuse I feel. Added to that ancient persecutions are too difficult to prove or even understand in our day.--T. Anthony 00:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this title, refactor any solid material. See my lengthier remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this exercise in WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Perpetual renaming is a good evidence that this "article" is nothing more than a disparate collection of "anything fishy about the Jews". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this tripe. I thought we'd taken care of this rubbish already. Tomer^talk 07:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is absolutely rediculous, it's articles like these that give wiki a bad name. 70.48.174.244 08:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, pertinent material can be summarized in two sentences at History of Judaism. dab (ᛏ) 08:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hard to believe somehting like this ended up in wiki. Kempler video 010:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Rachel1 08:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV propaganda. Kuratowski's Ghost 09:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. All those articles in the "religious persecution" series seem a little suspect to me, maybe we need to take a look at all of those too (there are so many of them...) Grandmasterka 09:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  yes please!! to begin with, Persecution of Heathens and Persecution of Wiccans can probably safely merged in Persecution of Californians :oP dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the "Persecution by" articles are probably the more contentious ones. "Persecution of" doesn't necessarily lead to blaming any religion, but the "persecution by" leads far more easily to agenda-driving. I know of some people who dislike all the Abrahamic faiths and would be happy to read about all of them persecuting people to "prove" they are so awful. Related to that there isn't any "Persecution by..." Hindus, Buddhists, etc articles.--T. Anthony 14:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Enough of this rubbish. We are writing an encyclopaedia. -- Olve 10:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ches88 11:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gilgamesh he 11:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: What's the point? There was an argument made by the other VFD mentioning that the author took a broad list of killings and attacks and sorted it by religion. How is this beneficial? If someone is doing a report on that, they can do the research themselves in periodicals and other sources. A list like this isn't needed, it gives you very little information and provokes anti-semetic feelings. --Hersch 12:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Basically agree with what has been said, and with T. Anthony in particular. — Hillel 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A few incidents gathered together to make the point that Jews are capable of persecuting. Please delete with extreme prejudice. JFW | T@lk 12:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article contains no substance gidonb 14:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any verifiable information to appropriate article. Delete the rest. Any group be it religious, ethnic, or other will persecute someone else. It is sadly a part of human nature. --StuffOfInterest 14:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I suppose one can say the article discredits itself, but we should still strive to only have good articles in Wikipedia. --Leifern 14:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very boring flavor. Klonimus 14:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. DLand 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. I don't think censorship is good for wiki. Lapinmies 15:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in principle, but I would be uneasy about this while Historical persecution by Christians, Historical persecution by Muslims and Historical persecution by atheists remain. In covering all of history, all four articles tend towards making a point. --Vjam 16:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, even though the article shouldn't exist, since the Muslim and Christian articles have survived AFD. The need for consistency one way or the other should override. Suspect I may be onto a loser here, but it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia if it refuses a casefile against only one religion. Should it be kept, it needs a substantial rewrite. --Vjam 16:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is determining where to draw the line between persecution by religious people (which is what the name of the article suggests), which is singularly unencyclopedic, and persecution by governments which is done in concert with or as a result of religious authorities urging them to do so in an official capacity. Even in Biblical times, there were no such persecutions by Jews or Jewish-run governments, nor are there even today. The only point in keeping such an article, in fact, would be to say "This phenomenon doesn't exist" or something similar thereto... Tomer^talk 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's unnecessary to be a 100% consistent on this if there's no reason to do so. As we have Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses do we also need Persecution by Jehovah's Witnesses? As Anti-Shaker survived do we need an article on Persecution by Shakers or Prejudices of the Shakers? I mean JWs do have internal bickerings and disfellowships. For that matter so did the Shakers. (Internal fights seems to be the main justification for keep voters) Anyway where do you stop on this?--T. Anthony 14:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Avi 16:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Eranb 17:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Most of the information there is probably in other articles, anyway. I mean, it has happened, although not to the extent many people allege. I'm kinda reserving judgement on it, but my gut feeling would be to say delete - although weakly. XYaAsehShalomX 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Polemic, anything of value can be used in other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and merge with Historical treatment of non-Jews by Jews (currently undergoing AFD). To copy my statement from there: While all Jews are obviously different, this is a facet of Judaism that's absolutely substantial enough to write about by itself. Things it could note: Biblical commands to wipe out Amalekites, Canaanites, etc.; any findings on how those of other religions were treated under the Maccabean Kingdom and later; how apostates and non-Jews have historically been treated and are treated today (e.g., see if we can find news stories about tolerance toward and/or ostracism of those who "went off the path", and instructions from halachic authorities such as the Shulchan Aruch on how to deal with such heretics); non-Jews' status in Israel; and non-Jews' status under traditional, Conservative, Reform, and other variants of Jewish law. There's a great deal to discuss here, every bit encyclopedic, and it shouldn't be thrown away just because the current content is incomplete.

  For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here, I would like to note that User:IZAK e-mailed me to point out this page, which of course doesn't show up on his edit history. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Simetrical needs to apologize very quickly here and now for his highly offensive comment that "...For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here..." which is totally disgusting and out of line. What is he saying, that Jews should "shut up" ? This just reinforces the need to delete articles of this nature that are poisonous magnets that attract the wrong kind of misinformed and twisted debate and responses. IZAK 08:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To copy my response from the other vote: I'm certainly not apologizing for commenting on there being a remarkable prevalence of Jews here, because there is. How on Earth is that offensive? Stop trying to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is an anti-Semite—you've lost an RFAr on that already for good reason.

      I was pointing out that you were electioneering, nothing more. You deliberately attempted to skew the proportion of Jews to non-Jews here to well over normal levels, thereby making the vote unrepresentative, and you know it. Don't get upset where you're called out. Not that such electioneering is necessarily prohibited on Wikipedia, but it could be taken into account by the closing admin if the vote were closer than it is. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

      • I didn't find it offensive exactly, although it did make me uncomfortable. I don't like the implication that it's mostly or largely Jewish people voting delete. It seems a bit patronizing or something. Many of us who voted delete are Gentiles. In my case I've known very few Jewish people in life. However a few things make delete sensible. For starters we don't do "Persecution by" articles for other religions that generally lacked a political apparatus to persecute and represent less than 1% of the world's people. There is no Persecution by Sikhs article and there's almost certainly not going to be either. We also don't do ancient persecution by articles either. We could do an article on "Religious persecution in ancient times" and include the Jewish kingdoms, but that's a different issue. As it stands it seems like unfairly singling Jewish people out as any persecution they did is just not as noteworthy as that of Muslims or Christians.(Or Buddhists or Confucians for that matter)--T. Anthony 14:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't mean to imply that this was a reason for calling off the vote or anything. I just find it appropriate, whenever someone contacts me to vote on something, to note that that person contacted me. Clearly non-Jews as well as Jews seem to feel that this article should be deleted. (I'm an Orthodox Jew myself, in case you don't know.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Simetrical: There is process and method and then there is meaning and intent. While there may be disagreement about what is the best process and method on Wikipedia, there is no disagreement about the meaning and intent of the phrase you used "...For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here..." which you now compound (for the worse) by saying "...You deliberately attempted to skew the proportion of Jews to non-Jews here to well over normal levels..." (implying that Wikipedia works with some sort of racial or religious "quota system", which it does not). Most impartial and knowledgeable people would say your comments are truly unfortunate and VERY nasty, to say the least. I have not and did not use the words "anti-Semite" here and I have not accused you of being one (so quit playing "victim" please). I merely brought your attention to the fact that you continue to make tasteless and disgusting slurs, considered insulting by many people -- not just Jews -- that would be deemed beneath contempt and not to be uttered in polite company, which you should apologize for, and not, as you continue to do, reinforce and self-righteously "justify". Furthermore, you make it sound that I am running for some sort of office by using the word "electioneering" which is all rather strange. Oh, and I am not getting upset, do you think I should be? IZAK 07:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia does not have any kind of "quota system". However, AFDs are theoretically supposed to derive their authority from community consensus, and therefore they should as much as possible represent a cross-section of the community. Jews are, I would expect (although I could be wrong), a lot more likely to vote delete here than other groups, and therefore you skewed the demographics of the vote considerably by mass-informing Jews of the debate. This may not have made a difference, of course, but I still find it distasteful, particularly when you did it untraceably.

          You never used the word "anti-Semite". You just called my statement "disgusting", "out of line", "highly offensive", "misinformed", and "twisted", and suggested that I was implying that all Jews should "shut up". Now, might you have reacted the same way if I had remarked on a preponderance of Shinto in an AFD for a hypothetical Persecution of non-Shinto by Shinto article? Perhaps. Based on your past actions, I'm inclined to think the contrary.

          The term electioneering is generally used in actual elections, but can be used to refer to other votes as well. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic; what content could be included under this rubric is better loctaed elsewhere. Eusebeus 20:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic. Ynhockey 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as pewr Jayjg -- Yid613 22:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per IZAK and Jayjg. 172 22:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with no redirect Anything that is actually good in this article should be moved elsewhere, the rest of it should vanish. KrazyCaley 23:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per SlimVirgin & Eusebeus. -- Nahum 06:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Evolver of Borg 10:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and delete all "Persecution by" articles as per T. Anthony. Yoninah 18:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or not... I have edited the article to reflect greater accuracy and a larger overall perspective. Of course, the article in its current state sounds like a joke since the two major claims of "persecution" are debunked. So it probably should be deleted, but if it stayed up, I don't know if it would do much harm. RabbiSimon 17:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per SlimVirgin. Absolutely useless "article". --Michaelk 08:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per IZAK and Jayjg. --maayan 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There doesn't seem to be any "here" here, as they say. If somebody wants to address the treatment of apostates and heretics under Judaism, that's a different matter. Gzuckier 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete--196.206.213.71 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There were tidbits of actual history and lots of filler that came out of a dumpster. If this article is kept, someone tell me so I can get out my hacksaw and carve out all the garbage. Hiergargo 03:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete content but I am open to the idea of such a page. Most religious movements with such long traditions have caused the persecution of people... but, not in this way. I am worried that all of these "Persecution by" articles have a lot of rubbish in them... this one just seems to have more of it than the others. gren グレン ^? 06:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with most of what has already been said. This article is complete rubbish. СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 12:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything unbiased and factual with History of Judaism.
• Delete per pretty much everyone else. And to those saying "merge" ... please consider, someone is actually going to have to go through and merge. If you don't want to do it yourself, just vote delete. Cyde Weys 05:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rework? The topic should have a place in Wikipedia just as Historical persecution by Christians and Historical persecution by Muslims are valid. I would vote for the creation of Historical persecution by Jews (not just a redirect to this article) and populate it with bits of both this article and the one of "current" prosecution. There is always some POV when discussing religious matters (or arguing, as my Conservative Jewish Father does with his Othodox Jewish brother-in-law). The Torah, lay history and the news all contain instances of persecution at the hands of Jews and it should be documented, albeit in a more encyclopedic, NPOV light. Grika [[User talk:Grika]] 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What encyclopedic content do you foresee this article including? More to the point, what encyclopedic content parallelling the content of the Persecution by Muslims and Persecution by Christians articles do you foresee this article including? Some badly-behaved charedim in the Old City who spit on Christians don't really qualify. The destruction of `Amaleq is hardly "Persecution by Jews" as it was a war against an enemy bent on destroying the Jews. And therein lies the critical problem with arguing that Persecution by Jews is a parallel to Persecution by Muslims or Persecution by Christians: as I've said before, to qualify for comparison, Jews would have to (a) be in power somewhere and (b) have that power directed by religious authorities. Except during a brief period with the Maccabees, that has never happened, anywhere. While mention of the Maccabees incident is encyclopedic, it belongs in History of the Jews (where it is, btw.) ... The idea that this article (to say nothing of two articles!) needs to stay as some sort of "balance" is just silly. Would you support a Persecution by Mormons article? Persecution by Jehovah's Witnesses? Persecution by Quakers? Persecution by Druzes? Persecution by Bahá'ís? (don't be fooled by the blue link...that's actually a redirect to "Persecution of Bahá'ís!) Persecution by Jains? Persecution by Sikhs? Persecution by Amerindian spiritualists (that one might actually be interesting and possibly encyclopedic)? "Balance" in this case is moral relativism. While moral relativism is encyclopedic, it's not a synonym for WP:NPOV, especially not when, as in this case, it requires WP:OR. Tomer^talk 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There is such a dispute in the works about Mormons, found here: Mountain Meadows massacre, and I don't see any great clamoring to make a separate article about it. If there is a strongly held conviction that every religious group should have an article titled "Persecution of non-<religious group> by <religious group>", then we should prioritize it by the size of the religious group, in which Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Confusian adherents, etc., are covered before we get around to the Jews. --Leifern 19:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • First off, I didn't realize people had to take a number before submitting an article. In response to TShilo12, if there is valid information on any topic, shouldn't there at least be a stub about it. There are plenty of news articles supporting claims of Jewish intolerance be it from non-secular news sources, non-Jewish religious news sources or even Heeb Magazine and groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace. Obviously both of the "persecution by Jews" articles are filled with non-sourced, sometimes outright, bigoted statements, but that shouldn't condemn a topic as valueless, just it's current content. And just so you know, I wouldn't support any article simply because someone might have this or that viewpoint and is using Wikipedia as a soapbox, but if the topic has merit by virtue of undeniable observables then it deserves mention. And as to its encyclopedic credibility, would it not be true that if a topic can conceivably be the source of a respectable college thesis, then it deserves to be in an encyclopedia? Grika 21:47, 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 SPEEDY DELETE as useless after it was added to the main article. JIP | Talk 09:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civilization IV/Civilizations and Leaders Chart

This was a subpage that was transcluded into the Civilization IV article, which seems to be a silly and generally discouraged thing to do in the article namespace. I've substituted the table into the article. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:04, 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. -Splash^talk 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews

See Talk:Contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews for arguments regarding the unsuitability of this topic that seems to aim to accomplish a POV cynical goal more suited to the Anti-Zionism article. There is already an article about Zionism and racism in any case, so this article seems suspiciously placed to portray Jews as "villains" -- more of a "blame the victim" syndrome routine, than a work of unbiased scholarship. What a shame that it has been here so long. IZAK 06:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--Rachack 16:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete IZAK 06:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm switching as Status of religious freedom in Israel seems to be dealt with in Religion in Israel, including the stuff that was in this article and seemed germane.--T. Anthony 07:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - what's the argument for deleting the article? --Candide, or Optimism 06:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Candide: Simple, it's full of garbage, not worthy of an encyclopedia. IZAK 09:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'm open to discussion here, but my instinct would be to refactor any well-cited material that is not elsewhere, and delete this, along with other articles like Historical persecution by Muslims, Historical persecution by Atheists, and Historical persecution by Christians. All of these seem to me to rely on muddled categories: they pick out a broad religious affiliation, and then seek out persecutors who happen to be of that affiliation. And "persecution" is such a loaded word all around, especially when applied (as it is here) to a private citizen spitting at someone. I could imagine a useful article on human rights of non-Jews in Israel (which seems the real thrust of this), but not one focused primarily on violations of those rights. If violations are prevalent, that would come out in such an article; if not, so would that. More drastically, on a related article, even in a contemporary context, any coverage of "Muslims" ranges from Indonesia to Saudi Arabia. It's hard for me to imagine that any meaningful pattern of persecution ranges over such divergent societies. All worthwhile material here should be regrouped in ways that don't lend themselves to one-sided articles, whether this is organized by time-period, or on some other principle. I don't usually monitor AFD these days (although I'll watchlist this page), but if someone wants to nominate any of these related articles for deletion, you may feel free to contact me via my talk page, and I will cast essentially the same vote on any of them. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And if I want to read about Muslim, Christian, or Jewish persecution of other people, where would I go? --Candide, or Optimism 19:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Kafir (Islam), Islamism, Category:Inquisition, Category:Religious persecution, Witch trial, Amalekites, etc should all indicate who's doing the persecution in least in the article.--T. Anthony 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to go for deleting all these "persecution by" articles I could go for that too. I created the one on atheists as there were all these others already, but all of them gone is okay by me too.--T. Anthony 07:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that these "Religious persecution" articles have been brought up for deletion before. I'd be more than happy to vote to keep them again, because the topic is an important subject in human history. :) — RJH 17:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "The vast majority of Jews believe" is nonsense alone. Most of the rest of the article is unsupported and vague, but is also contained in other articles, making this one redundant. And I agree with Jmabel. jnothman ^talk 07:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this. I thought we'd already gotten rid of this tripe. Tomer^talk 07:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: consider Persecution of non-blondes by blondes instead. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • We'd prolly have more luck with Persecution of blondes by non-blondes...perhaps we should just make that a redirect to blonde jokes tho... :-p Tomer^talk 17:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Word. Let's hurry up and get this over with. It's nearing Shabbat and I'd like to enjoy my time and relax, and specifically not worry about bickering of something so simple. --Hersch 12:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the content (at least those parts that aren't grossly pov) are already covered elsewhere 70.48.174.244 08:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, very good explanations aboveKempler video 09:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV propaganda. Kuratowski's Ghost 09:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. All those articles in the "religious persecution" series seem a little suspect to me, maybe we need to take a look at all of those too (there are so many of them...) Grandmasterka 09:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. We are writing an encyclopaedia, not a hate magazine. -- Olve 10:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ches88 11:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Let me be bold: there's no need for an article that basically has nothing to cover. Jews might not be better than other people, but "religious persecution" seems not to be one of their flaws. I can see that the article itself admits that (at least in my interpretation?) but our tendency to try to write something educated about everything turns this acknowledgment into a pretty awkward text. Also, why do some people always have to mix everything in the same bag? — Hillel 12:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Spitting attacks are persecution? The fact that the State of Israel may be doing things that some would call persecution does not equate with "Jews", as these acts are not performed as a function of the state's "Jewish identity" but for political reasons. In other words: everything is POV, out of balance and will remain so whatever changes are made. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • /me persecutes this article... Tomer^talk 13:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and I give my permission to copy this vote into any nominated "Persecution of ..." article's AfD entry. Confusing Manifestation 13:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others gidonb 13:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment author(s) seem(s) utterly confused between Israelis and Jews. Also Law of return is not a treatment of non-Jews but rather of Jews and their immediate families. gidonb 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge appropriate information to appropriate article. Delete anything that is left. --StuffOfInterest 14:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is what is known as begging the question. --Leifern 14:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very boring flavor. Klonimus 14:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a good example of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. DLand 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As the article itself points out, this is more about Jews as a nationality than as a religion; and there are no other nationality-based articles, about the right of return of Germans to Germany, for instance. The other persecution articles linked are religion based, and the best that can be cited here in that category is that sometimes orthodox Jews spit on nonJews, possibly as often as once a week? (apparently I wasn't logged in when I posted this originally)Gzuckier 16:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Full of POV Avi 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Eranb 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - garbage XYaAsehShalomX 17:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Polemic, and most of it is already in Religion_in_Israel#Religious_tensions. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep under new name (Historical treatment of non-Jews by Jews). While all Jews are obviously different, this is a facet of Judaism that's absolutely substantial enough to write about by itself. Things it could note: Biblical commands to wipe out Amalekites, Canaanites, etc.; any findings on how those of other religions were treated under the Maccabean Kingdom and later; how apostates and non-Jews have historically been treated and are treated today (e.g., see if we can find news stories about tolerance toward and/or ostracism of those who "went off the path", and instructions from halachic authorities such as the Shulchan Aruch on how to deal with such heretics); non-Jews' status in Israel; and non-Jews' status under traditional, Conservative, Reform, and other variants of Jewish law. There's a great deal to discuss here, every bit encyclopedic, and it shouldn't be thrown away just because the current content is incomplete.

  For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here, I would like to note that User:IZAK e-mailed me to point out this page, which of course doesn't show up on his edit history. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm confused as to why you moved the article to that new title. The contents have little to do with the new title, and it doesn't seem to make sense to move articles while they're being discussed in AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • (Put before IZAK's earlier comment to make the indentation less confusing:) The contents were a subset of the topic covered by the new title, since persecution of non-Jews by Jews is inherently a subset of the historical treatment of non-Jews by Jews. Articles should never present only one side of a story, and therefore I moved the article to a name that didn't inherently restrict the article to one side of a story. And since articles are routinely edited during AFDs, and regularly are kept due to their improvement over the course of the AFD, I see no problem with moving pages either. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have reversed Simetrical's highly manipulative move there, which he should not have done as long as this vote is underway. Furthermore, Simetrical needs to apologize very quickly here and now for his highly offensive comment that "...For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here..." which is totally disgusting and out of line. What is he saying, that Jews should "shut up" ? This just reinforces the need to delete articles of this nature that are poisonous magnets that attract the wrong kind of misinformed and twisted debate and responses. IZAK 08:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, I would like to know why moving a page under AFD should be verboten any more than editing it. And I'm certainly not apologizing for commenting on there being a remarkable prevalence of Jews here, because there is. How on Earth is that offensive? Stop trying to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is an anti-Semite—you've lost an RFAr on that already for good reason.

        I was pointing out that you were electioneering, nothing more. You deliberately attempted to skew the proportion of Jews to non-Jews here to well over normal levels, thereby making the vote unrepresentative, and you know it. Don't get upset where you're called out. Not that such electioneering is necessarily prohibited on Wikipedia, but it could be taken into account by the closing admin if the vote were closer than it is. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

        • Simetrical: There is process and method and then there is meaning and intent. While there may be disagreement about what is the best process and method on Wikipedia, there is no disagreement about the meaning and intent of the phrase you used "...For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here..." which you now compound (for the worse) by saying "...You deliberately attempted to skew the proportion of Jews to non-Jews here to well over normal levels..." (implying that Wikipedia works with some sort of racial or religious "quota system", which it does not). Most impartial and knowledgeable people would say your comments are truly unfortunate and VERY nasty, to say the least. I have not and did not use the words "anti-Semite" here and I have not accused you of being one (so quit playing "victim" please). I merely brought your attention to the fact that you continue to make tasteless and disgusting slurs, considered insulting by many people -- not just Jews -- that would be deemed beneath contempt and not to be uttered in polite company, which you should apologize for, and not, as you continue to do, reinforce and self-righteously "justify". Furthermore, you make it sound that I am running for some sort of office by using the word "electioneering" which is all rather strange. Oh, and I am not getting upset, do you think I should be? IZAK 07:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I've responded to IZAK at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient persecution of non-Jews by Jews. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per SlimVirgin. -- Ynhockey 20:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per DLand -- Yid613 22:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per IZAK and SlimVirgin. 172 22:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything that is worthy with other appropriate pages, get rid of the junk.
• Strong Delete per Izak et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per SlimVirgin. -- Nahum 06:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Evolver of Borg 10:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the article is not so much an encyclopedia entry as an anti-Semitic diatribe. Yoninah 18:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Absolute useless tripe. SlimVirgin's answer says it best. --Michaelk 08:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per IZAK and Jayjg. --maayan 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Stong Delete No comment.--196.206.213.71 20:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Revolución (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Though in most, if not all, groups there are those who are prejudiced against outsiders, and you could definitely dredge up a few incidents, most of the material in this article is at best tangential to the topic of contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews, concentrating on the State of Israel instead. Whoever wrote this article could have at least bothered to look up the views of the various Jewish groups and movements on the topic. If this article somehow is kept, someone please tell me, and I'll be happy to hack out the irrelevant trash. Hiergargo 03:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per everyone's comments; this article is complete garbage. If I had seen it when it was newly created, I probably would have added the {{nonsense}} tag to it. СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 12:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything factual and/or relevant, and delete the rest. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. If anything, it's the the Jews who have been repeatedly persecuted (have we forgotten The Holocaust already?!) Cyde Weys 05:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A group can be both persecutor and persecuted in different times or circumstances. I voted delete, but I don't think being victimized in the Holocaust makes a group incapable of being victimizers. Serbs were slaughtered by the Croat Ustase, but Serbs also slaughtered people in the civil war decades later.--T. Anthony 16:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per above. --Mrfixter 00:32, 25 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 BOTH. -Splash^talk 23:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intrealistic and Minisculate

Words made up by a not-very-notable person. Kappa 06:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism, no relevant Google hits for either. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:19Z
• Delete, dicdef of a non-notable neologism NickelShoe 21:47, 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 speedy delete. Mushroom 13:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Svelglistigor band

Band vanity, zero search results for +Svelglistigor +band. Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:40, Jan. 20, 2006

• Delete as non-notable-music. No Google hits for Svelglistigor. Tagged as {{nn-band}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:18Z

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stream TV

Clearly Commerical Advertising, is absolutely not a "notable product" per Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) -- also worth mentioning that the article was put up by the person who wrote the software, not by a neutral 3rd party. the stream to file forum should give some idea of the level of activity around this product. AdamJacobMuller 06:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable website. Barely existed for 2 weeks. Google resolves "Stream TV" to other things. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 07:17Z
• Delete and stream it outta here per nom. Eusebeus 20:21, 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, I don't see much point in relisting this. -Splash^talk 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolli aPOPalypse

Has nothing to do with the aPOCALYPSE pRODUCTION cREW, rather, it's a non-notable or hoax art movement with zero (0) google hits. Delete as bollocks. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:24, Jan. 20, 2006

• Delete as unverifiable, non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 08:25Z

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vemiesiire

Delete. The contents of this article are non-verifiable, original research, and obviously a case of vanity. No sign of notability either: 0 ghits for the name of the conlang, 13 for the name of the author. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 07:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• How do you say delete in Vemiesiire?   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 07:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, non-notable. xlink is a useless geocities website. I guess this was by someone that knows some linguistics . —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 08:24Z

KeepI know someone that speaks it (they know the woman that wrote it somehow). I think it's kind of interesting. I say don't delete it, people where I live know about it. I don't or I would edit.

• Delete Non-notable, not sourced (at least not to anything I would look to). Makemi 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

KeepYou probably didn't find any hits on it because the title was just decided. The working title was Kokopelli.

Comment The previous unsigned comments were by 206.106.97.98 Makemi 17:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I should note that "Kokopelli" generates a lot of ghits, most of them apparently related to some kind of flute. A google for "kokopelli+heidewald" gives only three hits, obviously not related to the language either. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Also search:Kokopelli and "constructed language" gives absolutely no relevant hits. Makemi 17:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Just because it isn't interesting to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter to the people that speak it. It seems like a useful article, has an example of the language and everything. IJzeren Jan seems a bit of a hypocrite to me, seeing he has his own constructed language and he fought so bitterly over that site not being deleted. It's a language some people obviously speak, if this one goes then many others need to be cleaned out, including IJzeren Jan's language, where the outside link attached is his website! Wikipedia is all about have people use their specialized knowledge to inform other people! --Menner8 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be verifiable, just not published all over the internet. Looks fine to me, doesn't hurt you any. Keep.

The preceding two comments are both by User:Menner8 (1 edit, to this page), who also added the word "Keep" to the other two unsigned comments by User:206.106.97.98. Please don't use Sockpuppets. Makemi 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting personal, Menner8? Well then, let me explain a few things:

1. Indeed, I dó have a constructed language. Several even. What's the difference? I'm very interested in conlangs and I do care for them. If you don't believe me, just look at the Portal:Constructed languages that I've co-created.
2. I didn't start the article about Wenedyk myself. It was started by someone else. What I did do was making a few edits later on. Besides, I have never claimed my language is notable, but others apparently do. And honestly, I don't care much if the article is there or not; it is not supposed to be learned by anybody anyway.
3. I didn't fight bitterly over that article in particular. At the time, there was a massive attack against a whole series of conlangs, mine included, and the reason for these attacks was pretty moot. So I stood up for all of them. If the vote had been about Wenedyk only, I would have abstained from voting.
4. The outside link points to my website. So what? At least, there is something on that website!
5. I know that Google hits are not the only measure for significance, but for fairly recent phenomena like young conlangs it is about the only source we have. The problem with V. is simply that there's nothing that would even confirm that the language exists at all. No grammar, no dictionary, no info about its creator, nothing! If there's a book about it, then please mention the title and the ISBN number. It the press has been writing about it, ditto. But the way it looks now, the whole thing might very well be a hoax. My point is: there's nothing to substantiate the article.
6. Saying that there are several people who speak it is easy. So, where are these people? Who are they? Can you prove it?

Regards, —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 20:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete utterly nn; go learn French instead. Eusebeus 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I think the language is not only a beautiful sounding language, it also is a well-constructed language with simplified grammar. I am glad to hear that it has some speakers already and hope to read more words in Vemiesiire when the dictionary goes on-line. From Wikipedia user, Jeanette Neher

• Here I am, author of the article. I am here, I suppose, to defend what I wrote and explain a simple yet beautiful concept. It doesn't matter as much to you as it does to other people. I want the article to be included because I think it has information interesting to a specific audience. This is a real language, and all information I included is drawn right from its dictionary, comprised of thousands of words. I don't feel the need to verify its authenticity or provide you with names of speakers willing to write e-mails flexing their skills (although I easily could, if you would like). I don't feel the need because I don't think this discussion is even really about Vemiesiire, and I think a more general stance on conlags should be defined for Wikipedia, so we can have order and reason and not just personal vendettas and unnecessary hurt feelings.

In the meanwhile, I stand by its authenticity and will always delight to share my specific knowledge with the world, and hope others feel the same determination. Keep. --Erika00177 21:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A discussion regarding policy regarding conlangs has been, and in a way still is, going on. See WP:CONLANG. Look, this is not about constructed languages in general, not even about yours. And this has nothing to do with any personal vendettas. To be frank, I even like your language, and I would certainly like to hear the soundbytes. It's about the question whether or not an article here in WP is warranted. And the arguments I used (lack of verifiability, original research, vanity, no sign of notability) would make one suspect that it isn't for now. You saying that it's all true doesn't change those facts. I agree with you this information is interesting to a specific audience, but that's really not enough for inclusion! Like I told you on your user page, there are several more specialised places for that. I even took the liberty to transwiki your article to the Conlang Wiki (here it is; feel free to do with it as you please). —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 22:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Weak Delete The author does raise a point that conlangs should not be deleted a priori, but the fact remains that conlangs must be NOTABLE to be included on WP. I could make up a very poor conlang in 10 minutes, but that wouldn't make it article-worthy. Alternately, I could make a very good one over several years, but if no one spoke it and it was generally irrelevant, it still wouldn't be a WP article. Author/article must show that this conlang is significant in some way (are there institutes that teach this language? are there provably a large number of people who speak the language? etc.) If this is done, I would be strongly in favor of keeping this article. KrazyCaley 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• No Google hits! No langmaker entry! It doesn't even appear on Janko Gorenc's list! Delete! Wiwaxia 10:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research has no place here. Also it should be noted the use of sock puppets to influence this vote.--Alabamaboy 00:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-verifiable rubbish. incog 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• I counter-endorse the above statement. Non-verifiable yes, rubbish no. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 21:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per IJzeren Jan. DenisMoskowitz 03:11, 25 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.