Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Babajobu 18:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Vincenzo Capone

non notable Al Capone brother Melaen 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and expand (in fact, although I didn't make this article, I'll take care of it myself). His notability can be established by a simple google search and reading online sources like these [1] [2], not to mention his family bonds and his law enforcement career. There are much more obscure historical characters who already have an article - I fail to see why this one shouldn't deserve its own. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable by association. Member of a legendary crime family, with a sufficiently interesting biography of his own [3] to warrant an article. --Ezeu 00:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, per Phaedriel. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 00:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, figure of historical interest. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 01:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as said before, cleanup and expand --TBC 01:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'll join the Keep and expand bandwagon. Liamdaly620 01:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per Phaedirel. --Terence Ong 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Al Capone's brother went into law enforcement? I never knew that until now. Fascinating. Obviously keep. Grandmasterka 08:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm sure there's info on him somewhere. Hurricanehink 17:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Clean up, and expand, per Phaedriel. PJM 17:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - has some notability. Latinus 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep lamentably insufficient coverage of a notable figure. The brother of probably the most notorious gangster in history becomes a law-enforcement officer? There's got to be a story in there worth telling! Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Clean up and expand - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 22:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• AKA Richard "Two-Gun" Hart. Also subject of a TV-movie and profiled at crimelibrary.com. So yeah, keep and expand. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup, Expand, Verify. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:20Z

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hard documentary evidence

dicdef Melaen 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nothing useful in this plain dicdef - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; almost useless even as a dictdef. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 00:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per Phaedriel. Ruby 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Phaedriel. --Terence Ong 05:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Worthless. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lockley 05:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the proof that stuff went down. Grandmasterka 08:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Documentary evidence. just maybe someone would type that in and redirects are cheap -- Astrokey44|talk 14:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Astrokey. --대조 | Talk 17:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect looks good. Liamdaly620 17:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no good. Latinus 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jim62sch 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The Deviant 21:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redirect seems pointless Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Documentary evidence. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:22Z

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mariah Carey remixes

An article on this topic was originally created at Remixography of Mariah Carey, and was subsequently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remixography of Mariah Carey). The content of this new article is different enough from the earlier article that it does not qualify for speedy deletion, but the reasons for why it was deleted still stand. All of the articles on Carey's singles contain information about their most notable remixes and alternative versions. This article, however, fails to establish the notability of any of these remixes or if they were officially commissioned by Carey's record label. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Extraordinary Machine 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reasons as the other AFD. --Ezeu 00:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete useless list of information already found elsewhere. Liamdaly620 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This information can be added to the articles for each individual Mariah Carey single, if the author cares to do it. Ruby 01:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ruby. --Terence Ong 05:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 05:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No real reason why this should be a seperate article --† Ðy§ep§ion † 07:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jim62sch 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The Deviant 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Useless - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 21:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly merge to List of songs by Mariah Carey as comments alongside the songs. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete info can be shown at each DJ's discography separately. —This user has left wikipedia 13:04 2006-01-23
• Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:22Z

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense. FCYTravis 01:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The artist Steven Friedland formerly os Apple Records. Hit single banned in the world....King of Fuh.

I'm not sure I even can decipher what the page says, but it seems to be about a non-notable musical group. See WP:Music Liamdaly620 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC and fails to establish a decent level of writing...SoothingR 00:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, indecipherable nonsense. No relevant Google results, and sourced in a non notable blog. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Deciphering: Brute Force was on the Beatles' Apple Records briefly, and had some cult fame due to a banned single called "The King of Fuh" (chorus: "All hail the Fuh King"). He's great, and probably does warrant an article. This is not that article. Delete. — sjorford (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So it's actually a real person? Wow... Liamdaly620 00:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. If there is noteworthy article buried within the gibberish, it needs a fresh start. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 00:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense... although thanks sjorford for the "translation" though.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 01:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartridge Comics

Delete this article on a non-notable webcomic which fails WP:WEB. There is no claim to notability in the article and my attempts to find any verifiable reliable sources (through google, nexis, etc.) for this article have all failed. Has no Alexa rank and a forum with only 20 members. -- Dragonfiend 00:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above Liamdaly620 00:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable --TBC 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruby 01:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 05:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lockley 05:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 08:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jim62sch 20:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:22Z
• Comment. Read through the archives. This one is my favorite :) - Haukur 22:19, 27 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erhard D. Hahn

• Delete this non-notable bio whose subject returned no true positive Goolge hits. Possible vanity judging by the contributor of the image. Draeco 00:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete The information source can be verified via Alberta History. Photograph source did not come from the the subject matter, but did come from a family. --Onecanuck 00:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Where and how exactly can this be verified? --Rob 01:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He is probably a pillar of his community, and certainly respected and loved by his neigbors and family members, but that is not enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. --Ezeu 00:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if the content can be verified it does not seem notable. Crunch 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ezeu; fails WP:BIO. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Being the founder and/or creator of a law enforcement agency would be a sufficient claim of notability, but the article specifically denotes his role as an advisor - far too little to assert significance. Most of the contents goes in praising the importance of the Louis Bull Police Service, not the subject of the article. Add to all these its complete unverifiability, and the result is clear: delete. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator, does not meet WP:BIO inclusion guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of verifiability. Even a search through newspapers and magazines that aren't free online, doesn't turn up anything. If the person's contributions were all covered and verified by the media, he would easily qualify as notable. If somebody finds press coverage mentioning him, I may change my vote. --Rob 01:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No 3rd party verification. Ruby 01:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - Unfortunately, this is unverifiable. Ashibaka tock 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete There are aspects of this article that are important if verifiable...the on-reserve policing had an origin somewhere but unfortunately, this is unverifiable. (Stormbay 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC))
• Weak delete per nom. --Terence Ong 05:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no verification of any kind. no hits for "Erhard Dietrich Hahn" on google, and nothing related for ""Erhard Hahn" canada" -- Astrokey44|talk 15:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless it can be redirected elsewhere (Alberta law enforcement?) Hurricanehink 17:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Jim62sch 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:23Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Dogfish Productions

Does not meet WP:WEB, per article it is a place for 'people who are bored' to come and 'hang out'. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Liamdaly620 00:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC 01:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn messageboard. Ruby 02:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 05:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lockley 05:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom TheRingess 05:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jim62sch 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The Deviant 21:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 21:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete patent non-notable web forum. 42 registered members. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:25Z

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 speedily deleted as per CSD G4: repost. --M@thwiz2020 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Dogfish Productions

Previously deleted, and remade. Tokakeke 00:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

speedied, G4. If it comes back again it might need protecting. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 29 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In-Depth Battlepedia

Totally Non-notable web page. A small webpage, with less hits and members than PinkPT, which got deleted for non-Notability MatthewF 00:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per abouve Liamdaly620 00:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per MatthewF. lack of notability is self evident from the alleged "features" of the website. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as promotion of non-notable website. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 00:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but add link to Neopets article. Ruby 02:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. I knew this day would come. Sycthos^Talk 04:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. --Terence Ong 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• *Merge with Neopets - Jim62sch 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is not Neopets, and is only an unrelated, minor fanbase. Perhaps provide an external link; but if this was added, then the article would grow enormously as there are many largert sites than this. MatthewF 22:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 20:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The Deviant 21:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Forum has 6,728 registered members. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:26Z

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CDRL

dicdef Melaen 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As DicDef --Lightdarkness 00:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep TestPilot 01:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Any particular reason why it should be kept? --Lightdarkness 02:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes. That article is a stub, that eventually grow into appropriate enciclopedic article. Second - if someone ask wikipedia what is CDRL mean, he find at least some info(and it possible that even this short explanation would be enouph). And we got HUGE requested leagal article list, it might be possible that CDRL already there(or be there in a future). And the last one - you don't think we sould delete APXS article, do you? TestPilot 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete at least as it now stands. If it's expanded into something useful, I may change my mind. Liamdaly620 01:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and move to Wiktionary if possible. Peyna 03:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Transwiki to Wiktionary. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki to Wikitionary. --Terence Ong 05:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki and replace with Template:Wi so people can be directed to wiktionary -- Astrokey44|talk 15:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. Hurricanehink 17:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki - Jim62sch 20:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Transwiki to Wiktionary - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 21:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is a stub encyclopaedia article on Contract Data Requirements Lists, not a dictionary article on an initialism. The sources (that I've added) indicate that this stub can be expanded. Keep and rename to Contract Data Requirements List. Uncle G 16:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, expandable. Why the horizontal line above? Chick Bowen 19:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's to indicate the point at which I added the sources that I mentioned. Uncle G 18:36, 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 keep. Ifnord 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brodequin

band un-notability Melaen 00:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above Liamdaly620 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 01:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although I had never heard of them before, they seem to have a reputation among fans of death metal worldwide (take note the wide variety of languages used throughout all these websites). It appears this is not the classic nn bandity, with a 7-year career behind their backs and 3 albums listed in Amazon. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 01:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Google search for +Brodequin +"death metal" returns a sufficient number of websites about them. --Ezeu 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Notable, but the article needs a lot of work. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Terence Ong 05:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with cleanup tag -- Astrokey44|talk 15:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but it needs to be expanded. As a great fan of the band, I would be happy to clean the article up and expand it. AdamSebWolf 19:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with cleanup tag Jim62sch 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, they have no allmusic or artistdirect page, they have no listing at amazon.com (interesting that they do at amazon.de), their website has no alexa ranking, and apparently you can only buy their music via their record company's website. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

]

• Keep as multiple albums on a notable record label meets WP:MUSIC. Stifle 16:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What notable record label? One that only sells records online? User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geronimo Jackson

DELETE - No record of album having ever been bought or sold- JM Band does not actually exist. Unverifiable. Lostcruft. — TheKMan^talk 00:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above Liamdaly620 00:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. [4] PJM 01:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There appears to be a debate at the Lost television series forums and blogs (where its current claim of notability is allegedly asserted) whether or not this band ever existed. Nearly all online sources appear to agree that it actually never did, and that in fact the production mistook a certain band named Geronimo Black for some reason. Thus there is no real reason to keep an article that seems to assume otherwise. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Terence Ong 05:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Hurricanehink 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-verifiable fancruft. Rillian 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Sunray 01:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. The Lost cruft battle continues. Baryonyx 07:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, I agree, not verifiable. 209.177.232.139 almabes
• Strong keep As article says, mentioned in an episode of the television show Lost -- & information about this band (even verification whether it existed or was invented by the show's writers) is badly desired by every viewer of Lost. Sheesh, take a peak at any Lost discussion site on the Internet. (Want examples? I can furnish examples.) I believe so firmly that we should keep this article that I am willing to take extreme measures to keep it, but am quite willing to discuss the matter first. -- llywrch 16:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC) After a discussion with LeFlyman yesterday, I still say Keep, but will accept the determination of the Admin who closes this discussion. -- llywrch 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You raise an interesting point. I was considering changing my vote until I read your last sentence. What do you mean "I am willing to take extreme measures to keep it"? Are you saying you would not abide by the consensus decision made here? Sunray 16:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I am saying that to delete this article would be a grave mistake, & am emphasing just how fiercely I believe this. Part of my zeal for this article is out of surprise that no one else until this moment has spoken up in defense of it -- even an article that said it was a fictional band & never existed outside of Lost would justify the article's existence. (However, this morning I discovered a web page about this group & added it to the article, so I'd say that either it did exist or is a noteable hoax by the creators of Lost.) In short, had I a "save this article" chit as a long-time contributor to Wikipedia (or any credibility), I would spend it on this article. -- llywrch 16:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • even an article that said it was a fictional band & never existed outside of Lost would justify the article's existence -- that's where you and most everyone else here disagrees. As for that link you added, there's no there there. As I noted on the article's talk page, domain registrant information suggests that this is just another hoax website set up by ABC or some enterprising fan. If that's what it is, it deserves a brief mention in a couple of the Lost articles, just like the rest of the hoax sites. android79 16:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Not every Lost fan wants this page up on Wikipedia. I sure don't, because that's not what Wikipedia is for. Go hog wild about this on The Fuselage or some other fan forum, but Wikipedia is not a fansite, not a place for OR, unverifiable content, or speculation. As someone who's both a dedicated fan of Lost and someone who's worked very hard to get and keep the Lost articles in encyclopedic shape, I find your assertions inaccurate distortions of the truth and potentially harmful to the work so many others have dedicated their time to. Baryonyx 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Baronyx, I assume you'd rather delete this article instead of trying to rewrite it into acceptible form? If this article is deleted, & later events prove that either the group did exist, or it was important to the plot of Lost, it will be more difficult to recreate this article than you may think. According to current practice, deleting this article means it goes away with little or no chance of recreation. -- llywrch 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• That's also incorrect. If this band suddenly becomes an important plot point in the show or otherwise notable, there's nothing stopping anyone from recreating it. If it's deleted, you can even request that someone undelete the old content through deletion review. android79 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There's no acceptable form for an article like this, with virtually no verifiable content and non-notability besides a less than 20s scene on Lost. What can it be reduced to? One unexpandable line. That's like saying we should have left the page 540 when its sole contents were (4+8+15+16+23+42)*5. It won't be difficult to recreate the article... notice the page 4 8 15 16 23 42 which was resurrected recently, and instead of being deleted this time, is headed to a redirect. I'm most certainly not opposed to having this page resurrected should the band one day prove pivotal. But, the situation with Lost cruft has gotten beyond reasonable limits, and I'm of the opinion that these types of pages are an embarrassment and discouragement to those who diligently work on the Lost articles. As editors, it is our responsibility to hold Wikipedia to a higher standard of quality in the information we present. We've just deleted the article on the "security system", for example, because of its hefty OR and unverifiability. Will there possibly be a page on the "security system" when the show is done? Sure thing. But just because the "security system" may one day have its own page does not mean that we have to have any old poor quality page that gets made now. There's just not enough on the "security system" to merit an encyclopedic article under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The same applies to this "band": it may very well be that this is critical to the future of the show (which, note is speculation)... but what may one day be is not an excuse for retaining a substandard article that lowers the quality of Wikipedia. Baryonyx 06:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and replace with redirect to Episodes of Lost (season 2)#The Hunting Party. Everything that can be said about this "band" at this point is already covered in the episode synopsis. This is/was unverifiable fancruft of the sort that will get re-created over and over again. android79 16:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Does not even merit discussion -- this is a hoax page. There is no band "Geronimo Jackson" which ever topped the charts in August 1978 (See this Canadian chart list for August 19, 1978)-- it was created for LOST, likely based on an actual band from 1972, "Geronimo Black," formed by a member of Frank Zappa's Mothers of Invention. (Incidentally, check out the fourth song on the real album.)—LeFlyman 17:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If Driveshaft (another Lost band) has a wiki page, why can't other fictional aspects of the show?. toxikgrrl 16:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This article isn't being advocated for deletion merely because its a fictional band. It is advocated for deletion as non-notable, unverifiable, originally researched cruft material, mentioned for a few seconds in a single episode. There's a rather obvious difference between being a factual, accurate article on a recurring fictional character and a made-up article of a very minor fictional reference, IMHO. As for DriveShaft, I don't think it should be an article, either, even if it is Charlie's band. However, it has more accurate content derived from the show itself, and a more central role to a main character, so the argument for that band's inclusion has stronger footing than this one's.Baryonyx 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The band is not notable so far in the show. It was mentioned once. Jtrost 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Danflave 19:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • To Dan and others voting speedy: this article does not fit any criterion for speedy deletion. android79 19:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I suppose you are right, but I still do not want this übercruft sitting on Wikipedia for a week. I've begrudgingly changed my vote to "Delete." Danflave 19:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, hoax articles do fit the criteria ("Hoaxes in Wikipedia are considered vandalism"). Just because it's not specifically addressed on CSD, does not necessarily mean that it's not appropriate for speed deletion. Reducing the load on AfD by improving the Speed-Delete categories has been an on-going discussion. This highlights one area that has been "overlooked."—LeFlyman 22:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Err, this article isn't a hoax. It's an article about a hoax. android79 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • To clarify: prior to your revising it, the content of the article was made-up (i.e. a hoax) about a fictional band; hence it was a "meta-hoax". The material didn't even refer to the fan-hoax recently registered Web site. Now that it's a single verifiable sentence, it's no longer a hoax, but may never grow beyond the stub.—LeFlyman 00:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and OR Rillian 21:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Worthy of maybe a passing mention in the Lost episode summary, if that, not of its own page. ddevlin

• Keep - i looked it up becuase i wanted to see if it was a real band or not, the article gave me exactly the infor i needed as i have come to expect from wikipedia. Also, as a side note i think the band will come up again in the show...obviously i can not prove this though. --24.18.237.53 00:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• If it does, the situation may have to be re-evaluated. Until then, let the axe fall, as it were. --Agamemnon2 06:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete There is no reason for this article. It's not notable. Archon Divinus 12:48 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep Unless we want to delete all references from fiction --Kahlfin 19:20, 27 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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bozo sort

non encyclopedic algorithm Melaen 00:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above Liamdaly620 00:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no source information. Gazpacho 01:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: the source code is of no use but I had heard the term with the meaning pointed in the article. No idea whether programmer's slang is notable enough, though. Pavel Vozenilek 01:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as probable hoax. Also, it will not definitely "one day finish," unless that day is an infinite amount of time in the future. Peyna 03:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lockley 05:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to bogo sort but snip heavily. Something along the lines of "even more inefficient is the bozo sort, which only swaps two items on each iteration". And yes, the worst case running time is indeed infinite, so there is no guarantee the algorithm will ever finish. Imagine a case where it always swaps the same two items, for example. JIP | Talk 08:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is useful in the study of the analysis of algorithms. -- Mikeblas 15:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The bozo sort is simply a trivial variation of the bogo sort. The concept of an algorithm that does random changes to a set until it happens to get it in sorted order is useful in algorithm analysis but these two algorithms are far too similar to deserve individual articles. JIP | Talk 16:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with bogo sort. They are vaguely useful in comparison of sorting algorithms (e.g. "efficiency of sorting algorithms range from the unimaginably inefficient bozo sort, through the naive O(n²) sorts, to the fast O(nlogn) sorts") --대조 | Talk 17:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with bogo sort. And my compliments to the CS theorist who came up with this one -- it borders on BJAODN if you're into that sort of thing. Haikupoet 03:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Slight merge and redirect to Bogo sort. If the source code is any good, transwiki it to Wikisource or something. Stifle 16:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Bogo sort. How many stupid sorts are there to delete?? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:31Z

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 delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Welmet

non notable camp Melaen 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above Liamdaly620 00:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC 01:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, its NN. --Lockley 05:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)*
• Delete, little significance online besides from a few mentions at personal pages. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:31Z

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 Speedily deleted as patent nonsense by Curps. — TheKMan^talk 01:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Father mcginnisburg

Nonsensical ramblings about a non-existant personage. Have listed for speedy delete twice but original (and only) contributer keeps removing tag. He has also now removed the afd tag twice and vandalised my user page. Liamdaly620 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment already deleted by Curps--TBC 01:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L'Auberge de Bugnaux

not encyclopedic, may-be worth for wikitravel. Melaen 00:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete until someone expands the article and explain its importance --TBC 01:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a travel guide. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Liamdaly620 01:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per User:TBC --Bletch 02:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Phaedriel. --Terence Ong 15:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Latinus 18:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2sec

google returns way to many results to check for relevance, although filmmaking style is not in the first 100 results, "2 second movie" returns no relevant hits, delete as neologism MNewnham 01:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttle 2sec films - are a ligitimate style of filming, and has and is growing in various areas of the Southern United States of America, such as LSU Baton Rouge, University of Birmingham and the University of Alabama. There is also a film festival located in Shreveport, Louisiana that supports and encourages the 2 second film style. [MovieSauce.org] (Which has recieved entries from the entire world, and other festivals such as Slamdance, which is held in Park City, Utah during the Sundance Film Festival.) Also, the term 2 second Movie is not ligitimate because there are no "movies" that are 2 second style - only shorts.

• Delete per nomination Liamdaly620 01:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, based on nominator's research, it is likely a vanity neologism coined by the owners of the linked website. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Tokakeke 02:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Phaedriel. Ruby 03:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Latinus 18:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. incog 01:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:31Z
• Delete as nominated. Ifnord 20:28, 27 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ktulu's Kingdom

Vanity article. Content (e.g. Members list) mostly nonsense. Zen611 01:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Only 954 Google hits. [5]. NoIdeaNick 01:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination Liamdaly620 01:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 01:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. 954 hits is not "extremely popular" for an internet forum, which is what the article claims. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable forum --TBC 01:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 07:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 18:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable web forum. 170 registered members. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:32Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery Profiling

Not nonsense, but no context to explain what it is or what its for. Even following the link provides no help MNewnham 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination Liamdaly620 01:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No references in the article to back up the claim of being the best of whatever it is. Ruby 03:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like some kind of spam. After 30 seconds I gave up trying to figure it out. Peyna 03:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• It's an online workplace psychological evaluation test that produces a personal profile. I've actually taken part of the test so far. Still, definitely not notable, so delete. Grandmasterka 09:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and Grandmasterka. Interesting, but definetely not notable enough to warrant its inclusion. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 16:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 18:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unintelligible. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:33Z

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD^e✉ 07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erythuria

Reason why the page should be deleted Dangherous 01:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) erythuria have only played one show, and haven't released any songs yet. This, for me, warrants deletion. --Dangherous 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Liamdaly620 01:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, CSD A7, non notable band. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Local band, no recordings. "Erythuria is currently playing live shows with the ideas of developing a demo CD sometime in the near future." Ruby 03:05, 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 deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorgo

Originally created as autobiography, woefully misses the benchmarks of WP:BIO. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable Liamdaly620 01:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable person. Seems to be vanity --TBC 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete should have been moved to user page. TheRingess 02:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7, already tagged (not by me). - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 02:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, if I'd been thinking I would've tagged it instead of listing it here. Either solution works for me. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Webforum personality. Ruby 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but maybe redirect to sweet sorghum as it appears to be a common synonym [6]. Peyna 03:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delia Death

Goth singer,pin-up < 250 relevant google hits, discography not on major label, not on amazon MNewnham 01:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Liamdaly620 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article sums it all up when it says, "...relatively unknown by American mainstream..." Ruby 03:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sure there are significant metal and goth artists "...relatively unknown by American mainstream...". Nevertheless delete as NN. --대조 | Talk 17:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely not notable at all, and extra negative points for really terrible quality photos at her vanity website. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and yes, those photos are unfortunately not too good. --Lockley 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable --TBC 09:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non=notable. --Terence Ong 15:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 18:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete
• Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:34Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 20:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert S. Mendelsohn

This is not a useful page about an interesting person. The authors are mainly noted for efforts to present poorly reasoned attacks on vaccination in a wide and inappropriate variety of articles. The Quackwatch commentary linked from the page is informative.--Midgley 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Change my vote to Keep. He appears to have been a notable critic upon further research, but the article needs to be greatly expanded, especially regarding his criticisms. Liamdaly620 08:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep: Just another dubious attempt at suppression, and clearly at odds with the Wiki's policies on articles regarding published authors. The quackpot site epitomizes the undercurrents of abysmal attacks on informed consent prevalent in Western medicine. This AfD appears to reveal a degree of contempt towards informed medical debate, a sentiment evidently embraced unabashedly by those editors who have proposed, in recent months, the several AfDs on articles about critics of medical orthodoxy. Ombudsman 02:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you stick to the subject instead of trying to uncover one of your "conspiracies"? You have not given any reason why this page should be kept! JFW | T@lk 08:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Note above 'keep' vote was by a POV-pusher and is POV in itself. This person is not notable. Tokakeke 02:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep at least it's not a vanity article (quite the opposite in fact). Ruby 03:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Anyone who was the author of several books, past president of the National Health Federation, chairman of Illinois' Medical Licensing Committee, well-known conference/TV/radio speaker, etc should certainly have a Wikipedia article, no matter how bogus his ideas were. If you doubt his notability, just do a Google search for "Robert S Mendelsohn" - over 10,000 results, nearly all of them about the person in question. Him being considered a "quack" does not make an article about him any less interesting or encyclopedic. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Multiple issues here about Mendelsohn's credibility, credentials, and whether he was responsible & authoritative, but notable he is. His name gets 11,500 Google hits and he's the author of multiple published books. I think we should keep the page at least as a guide to the debate. --Lockley 05:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Every quack needs to have written a couple of books to achieve sufficient notoriety. No specific indication that this man has made an impact within or outside the alternative medicine or criticism of medicine community. JFW | T@lk 08:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per AdelaMay. The Dr. might or might not be bonkers, but is borderline notable just for publications and chair/president of this and that. The controversy around him tips him into the clearly notable category, IMHO. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep i can't say it any better, so i'll just iterate: Anyone who was the author of several books, past president of the National Health Federation, chairman of Illinois' Medical Licensing Committee, well-known conference/TV/radio speaker, etc should certainly have a Wikipedia article, no matter how bogus his ideas were. If you doubt his notability, just do a Google search for "Robert S Mendelsohn" - over 10,000 results, nearly all of them about the person in question. Him being considered a "quack" does not make an article about him any less interesting or encyclopedic. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 13:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AndelaMae. --Terence Ong 15:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Due to the fact that the google hits exceed 10,000, he has authored several books and has other various credentials; this decision should not even spark a contention. -- Salluste|talk 15:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC-5)
• Comment: Looking at the first couple of pages of Google hits, he is mentioned quite a lot (perhaps because there are few MDs who provide similar quotes) but there isn't much substance to the actual mentions. Some of what there is is rather odd - a claim that Aspirin alters blood clotting factors for instance - that would be Warfarin, Aspirin alters platelet adhesion - and reduces vitamin C on a "nutritional" site.

I'm not American, and it is hard to judge what the National Health Federation is about. Is it more like the BMA than the National Front, to use an English example?

if kept, this article needs to be written, and shuold be written about the man, rather to multiply copies of ideas already covering elsewhere.Midgley 15:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep he was the most notable anti-vaccine medical man of the last century, and allopathic critic. Very obvious suppression of that as we can see every day here for vaccine critics-- eg Midgleys other attempts over the last day or so: Beddow Bayly, Viera Scheibner, Charles Creighton. Lily Loat (deleted), and attempted deletions by other allopaths like CDN 99--Charles Pearce, Neil Miller, Martin Walker for vaccine critics etc. This is what they want to suppress [7]. Quackwatch is a well known pharma shill. Midgley is an allopath/vaccinator, bit obvious I would have thought. The wonder is how they can get away with it under everyones noses. Not to mention the deletion of links and text by them [8]. john 20:22, 27 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. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Durd

Dicdef and unsourced slang term. Andrew Levine 01:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Liamdaly620 01:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Regional (if that) "slang" - non encyclopedic. Tokakeke 02:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as dicdef. Some people have even less to do on Saturday night than we do, apparently. Daniel Case 02:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-encyclopedic at any rate. Ruby 02:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC 09:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless page. Hurricanehink 17:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 18:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as complete bollocks. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, me too, Speedy Delete as dicdef. --Lockley 23:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silver City Video Productions

Non-notable company/wedding videos, etc. Advertisement. —ERcheck @ 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not to mention the unencylopedic tone. Liamdaly620 01:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as promocruft. Daniel Case 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Daniel Case. Ruby 02:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC 09:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advert. Latinus 18:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. Essexmutant 11:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:35Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sponged

Dicdef slang. Andrew Levine 01:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Liamdaly620 01:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not good enough for the Wiktionary. The article is about the act of feeding someone BS, which is what the article itself is doing. Ruby 02:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ruby. --Terence Ong 15:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 17:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Did you know gullible isn't in the dictionary?" —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:36Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marc D'Onofrio and Marc D. Onofrio

Very few Google hits and this is not him. Curiously, scrape sites Answers.com and freedictionary.com have the same text. Is this something that was once here but deleted? No old AfD comes up. Daniel Case 02:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Multiple google queries don't seem to turn up anything related [9] [10] [11]. The older versions that these came from haven't been deleted, see the history of Marc D. Onofrio. The original article now notes that the info was taken from a 2001 WSJ article. --Interiot 02:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Marc D. Onofrio per author request, at least. Ruby 02:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as unverifiable, at least. Stifle 16:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:36Z

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Karmafist 05:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald A. Smith

Possible hoax. Has enough information that if true this is a notable person, but a series of web searches failed to find any hits for things such as his appointment to the Congressional Committees Business Advisory Council. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the information in this article. --Allen3 ^talk 02:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - probably a hoax -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 02:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bollocks, asserts he won the 2002 Republican of the Year award, but in 2002, the National Republican Congress Committee, or NRCC, awarded a “Republican of the Year Award” to Florida businessman Chris Hill. This failed fact-check, plus those of the nom, means that the odds are good it is all lies, the whole thing. Ruby 02:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, if not outright lies. Liamdaly620 08:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Not a Hoax. Contact the National Republican Congressional Committee and talk to Congressman Tom Davis's office and ask about Mr. Ronald A. Smith's Republican of the Year Award For Virginia for the Year 2001-2002. This was publicized by the NRCC with a press release in March of 2002. Mr. Chris Hill was the Republican of the year for Florida for 2002. I'm sorry but you apparently do not realize that they gave this award to one businessman from every state. Every item can be backed up in this listing or otherwise it would not have been put up. Also it has been listed on the internet at a separate site for several years with the exception of a few minor changes made to this update. Also this webpage was edited before and someone keeps changing it back to what it was before we had finished perfecting it. Please do not do that to our work again. If you take exeption to anything in it then please just contact us directly. We will be glad to back up whatever should be backed up with proof over any detail. \Wikistatman 09:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment So much the worse for his notability, if 50 states get a Republican of the Year every year. Ruby 15:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not right that you attack the credibility of Mr. Smith. We have removed the article and will be working on a version that includes whatever the reliable resources require as by way of info or formatting. Mr. Smith did not put this article up but it was put up by employees. There are numerous articles written in Newspapers including USA Today as well as his appearing on CNN, MSNBC and Dateline NBC and as well as a number of books that outline his family and his life available at bookstores as well as Walmart. Also his appointment as Chairman of the Business Advisory Counsel and as Republican of the Year for Virginia in 2001 (awarded in march of 2002) was announced by the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committe) in a Press Release in March of 2002. We will prep the required reliable source list as soon as that is prepared and then put it back up again. Wikistatman 12:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. There is now basically no content. Crunch 14:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete most probaly hoax. --Terence Ong 15:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article says he was most known for the invention of the "Refund Anticipation Loan System", which gets 2 google search hits [12] . He cant be notable if the most well known thing he did isnt notable -- Astrokey44|talk 15:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The problem is not really sources or verifiability, but sufficient notability. MCB 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable/unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:38Z

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. – Robert 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veggiefest

Delete non-notable event, with about the import of a company picnic. Link points to ESPN. Google indicates there are many veggiefests for all kinds of small towns. Ruby 02:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Welcome to VeggieFest on ESPN. The cabbages are leading the carrots 5 to.. Tokakeke 02:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but I'm too tired to make a humerous comment. Liamdaly620 08:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources -- Astrokey44|talk 15:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 18:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:38Z
• Delete nn crap incog 19:13, 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtua

Deleate: This has no substance, Appears to be an advertisment rather than a real article. Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Conveys virtua-lly no information. A quarter-stub. Ruby 02:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete They're a Brazillian ISP. Good for them. The article is so useless I just reproduced it in full. Liamdaly620 08:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I had to resist the temptation of slapping a {{nocontent}} in it... - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 17:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advert. Latinus 18:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete for lack of content. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:40Z
• Comment I'd think this more calls for a stub tag and the article to be expanded. Janizary 16:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert incog 19:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scanlon juice

No relevant Google hits, doesn't seem like it's notable even if there were any. At the very least, articles about things that might have been, several different times, are not encyclopedic. Daniel Case 02:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• It was supposed to be a Wikipedia Article, but its content took a turn for the worse. ;) Delete Tokakeke 02:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I put the last sentence in BJAODN. Thanks for the idea! Daniel Case 03:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Obvious hoax. Ruby 02:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think wikipedia is only for products that turn out to exist... Liamdaly620 08:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although utterly hilarious. Grandmasterka 10:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe BJAODN -- Astrokey44|talk 15:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Latinus 18:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:40Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. FCYTravis 04:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PLOrk

nn student group, no content Savidan 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable groups don't deserve their own wikipedia articles.--BUF4Life 02:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not even a dicdef. It's a wart on the hind end of Wikipedia. Ruby 02:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

interesting way to put it, and I agree.--BUF4Life 02:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't even know what this is after reading the article. Some people smashing their laptops into piano keys to make music? Better yet, does it really matter? Tokakeke 02:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A1. Tagged. PJM 03:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as creator has withdrawn support, so article will not be expanded (changing the one weak keep to a delete). = Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theron Pummer

nn vanity. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Keep Neutral pending outcome of ongoing discussion with nominator.I created this article. This individual has had published work in a philosophical journal; this work was deemed important enough that it was considered at a philosophical symposium at my college. I was impressed enough with the work to add it to WP. Will add citations if, after discussing the matter with the nominator, I remain convinced that the article is worthy. After conversations with various, more experienced Wikipedians, I am now persuaded that this article, even if I added the relevant citations, would not meet notability standards. KrazyCaley 02:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - If professors who do not make outstanding contributions to their field are not notable, their undergrads are doubly not-notable. Ruby 02:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per KrazyCaley - if not expanded, Delete. Tokakeke 02:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Should be held to the same standard as other professional in the field to warrant inclusion. Being published in a journal for one article isn't all that impressive. Peyna 03:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ruby. There is also no verification or reference to back up the claim that he was published in a "philosophical journal." Crunch 04:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I've had two articles published, that doesn't make me notable. So he isn't either. Liamdaly620 08:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn student -- Astrokey44|talk 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: nn. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saison dupont

DELEATE this article is an ad, No infomation is told about it. Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - No citation for claim of popularity. Ruby 02:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising, yet peppery and complex flavor.. I'm so torn. Tokakeke 02:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• I vote for a pepppery and complex deletion 08:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC 09:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advert. Latinus 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete for being a crappy article that doesn't assert importance; though it does seem mediocrely notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:43Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Deathphoenix 01:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bent Spoon

Non-notable business. Daniel Case 02:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete: Not notable - at all. Maybe even not to the community in Princeton! Tokakeke 02:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. A place of business is not speediable. PJM 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisement. Ruby 03:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is the kind of stuff you would find on a poster tacked on a disheveled notice board down an arbitrary street. Sycthos^Talk 04:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Liamdaly620 08:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete although I think places with great significance within a large local area should be kept (if it has that. Any Princetonites care to comment?) Also, 300 flavors is damn impressive. Weak keep as a significant venue within a large locale. Grandmasterka 10:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advert. Latinus 18:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:44Z
• Keep - As the author of this article, and as a Princetonite, Bent Spoon supporter and friend of the owners, I assert that the Bent Spoon is significant both locally and nationally. Many may be familiar with the slow food movement, where food is treated as a culturally significant and socially encompassing process, not simply an act of consumption. Whereas many ice cream shops claim to make their own ice cream, it simply means that they buy a premade base (eggs, cream, sugar, etc.), add their own flavors and then sell it as 'homemade'. In contrast, the Bent Spoon buys local products and starts absolutely from scratch, which is incredibly rare (ask your local ice cream shop if they crack their own eggs). This is significant because modern agricultural and consumption practices are potentially not sustainable, and any business that embodies at the heart of its mission a commitment to the sustainable development of its community is certainly notable. Also notice that I added a link to a New Jersey Monthly article profiling the Bent Spoon from January 2006, which potentially lends credibility to its status as 'notable'. Perhaps the entry does need to be edited to sound less like an advertisement. Any suggestions? Dzaback 02:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn business. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:38, 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 redirect; enough content in the AFL article to not warrant a merge. Johnleemk | Talk 08:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NFL Rejects

• Delete we don't have to have an article for every phrase used in football league rivalry. If anything, this article should be merged to American Football League. --Revolución (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, merging seems like a good idea with cleanup. Tokakeke 02:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above suggestion. And cleanup POV. Daniel Case 02:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (and redirect I guess) to American Football League... while the phrase is interesting, it really runs so parallel with the above article (or a history of the AFL article) that I can't see the point of an article for just the phrase.--W.marsh 03:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's second suggestion. Ruby 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect seems to be the best for this wikipedia reject. Liamdaly620 08:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge without redirect because the title would have been misleading to me, at least. Grandmasterka 10:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with American Football League. I don't see the need for a redirect. PJM 17:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)\
• Merge without redirect. Merging and redirecting from the above would be POV in and of itself. KrazyCaley 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with American Football League. This only makes sense in the context of the rivalry.--Mike Selinker 01:54, 27 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Gnostic Pagan Tradition

Appears to be original research/advertising/vanity/linkspamming for the poorly designed and completely unreferenced website http://www.gnostics.com, which has an Alexa ranking of 1,379,820. Pretty much all other references to the "Gnostic Pagan Tradition" on the web appear to be links to this page. Article created by Jason Farrow, whose only other Contributions to Wikipedia are links to gnostics.com added to various unrelated articles (like Wicca). It should be noted that Jason Farrow is also the webmaster of gnostics.com ([13] - see page footer). The "pagan school" this website advertises is a $120 online course. AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Adela's very detailed research - easy no brainer imho. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. Metacontent in an encyclopedia article! Harumph! Ruby 03:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jkelly 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Phædriel's comments. Good work, AdelaMae. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

03:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 06:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: original research or advertising, take your pick. Smerdis of Tlön 06:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete:per nom. The sooner the better.--◀Puck^talk▶ 08:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• "readers are encouraged to submit original material for publication" I sumbit Delete for publication. Liamdaly620 08:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Vidkun 01:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I hate to go so much against public opinion, however, I tend to do a lot of studying of religious/occult subjects, and pagan gnosticism actually goes far beyond just this one site. There has been a lot of study in this area with quite a few books published that touch on the subject. I'm very familiar with a lot of the concepts that are on this site and I can personally attest that this site is NOT merely original research. Although searches on the phrase "The Gnostic Pagan Tradition" may all point to this website, you will find that you will get hits on phrases such as "Pagan Gnosticism" and "Gnostic Paganism" that do not just point to this site. I believe that this topic should be retained and just re-worked to be less of an out-right advertisement. Nortonew 01:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to do an article on Pagan Gnosticism or Gnostic Paganism? "The Gnostic Pagan Tradition" certainly seems to refer to this particular group and would imply that there is only one such tradition. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That's true, it might be better to delete this article and start over with a new article that uses a more generic name for the subject.Nortonew 15:30, 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 speedily userfied. FCYTravis 03:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey nye

May be speedyable for nn-bio, but the claim of being a college athlete (though at a non-D1 institution) is probably enough of a claim of notability to list it here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 03:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only claim to notability is an obscure football statistic in a small college. Ruby 03:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It also appears to be vanity, given the creator's username. Also, the addition of the journal articles don't make the person any more notable. (Also can't verify it's the same person) Peyna 03:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Jeffreynye, the article's creator. --W.marsh 03:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy Agree with W.marsh.--BUF4Life 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• KeepThe author of the journal articles is, in fact, the same person. And however obscure the college was, he did have statistics. -- Erik Kenerson

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Deathphoenix 01:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LearnNet

A non-notable distance education program offered by a school. LearnNet yields many google hits, but only a handful of them refer to the program offered by Argyll Centre in Edmonton. Ezeu 03:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no claim that this program stands out from others. Ruby 03:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable Liamdaly620 08:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or maybe merge with Edmonton Public Schools or somewhere. Kappa 08:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep interesting and signficant program. I would be fine with a merge, if this isn't expanded. It could also be moved to Argyll Centre, which could talk about this and other programs. --Rob 08:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking more at this, I think it should definately be moved to Argyll Centre[14]. Then the article can discuss this program (LearnNet), and other closely related ones for students that don't physical attend regular schools (e.g. old fashioned offline support for home schooling). I now think a merge isn't so good, and the program is made available to students outside the Edmonton Public Schools district boundries; as this is particular appeal to students in rural areas. It will be appropriate to link to the article from relevant places (maybe Alberta), but not appropriate to link to Edmonton Public Schools (which would be needed if we merge there). --Rob 07:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While distance education in itself is undoubtedly worth mentioning in Wikipedia, I can't see the use for an entry on each and every implementation of it. We already have information at distance education; however, however, what's notable about this instance in particular? For example, we have a Wikipedia article about a web page, but we certaintly don't have an article about each webpage out there - only the notable ones. Admittedly, my example was quite a bit more extensive, but it still demonstrates the same concept of non-notability when it comes to articles about individual implementations of a more overlying subject. As far as I can tell from the article so far, LearnNet is non-notable. -Rebelguys2 09:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded, if not merge it with Edmonton Public Schools as suggested by Kappa --TBC 09:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Edmonton Public Schools. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:45Z
• Keep or Merge with Argyll Centre. It would mean the an article on Argyll would neeed to be created but it feal that it would be appropreate since Argyll does offer other programs other than LearnNet kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 19:17, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seymour Duncan SH-5

Individual guitar pickups are probably not noteworthy unless they're otherwise famous (e.g. Gibson's P-90). This is not one of those pickups, though the SH-4 might be (world's best selling pickup, as I recall) - the creator of this page appears to be confusing this with its more famous cousin. -- Grunt 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Humbucker. Ruby 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• A Merge with Seymour Duncan would suffice. This is merely a type of humbucker model, not something totally different like a P-90 or an EMG. PJM 03:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ruby, seems appropriate. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ruby Jim62sch 19:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Merging this with Humbucker would be like merging Honda Civic with Automobile. The SH-5 is a particular humbucker model, like the Civic is a particular car model. If there was a listing of all of the different models in Humbucker, it'd make more sense. Seymour Duncan is the best place for it. IMHO. PJM 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Seymour Duncan per PJM. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:46Z
• Merge to Seymour Duncan per above. Chick Bowen 19:29, 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 keep. Ifnord 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farrell Till

Farrell Till simply isn't notable. He was an editor of a publication with a very small audience. He has written a few articles and debated a few people. These things certainly don't make him notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • as nominator, your 'delete' vote is assumed.
• Keep 28,800 hits on Google, and I'm not liking what I'm seeing here, looks like a revenge series of AfDs in retailiation for the Chuck Missler one. Ruby 04:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This is and any other WP:POINT nominations. --Rob 04:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep; nomination made in bad faith. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete There are obvious WP:POINT issues here but let's try to deal with each article on its own merits. In this case, there are just over 400 Ghits ( go to the end of the list and look at the count now). He seems at about the same level of notability as some of the diploma mill nomination. Dlyons493 Talk 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think its important to point out, that in a speedy keep doesn't give somebody a free pass on WP:BIO. Its not a precedent for keeping the article, the way a normal keep would be. A speedy keep just puts things back the way they were yesterday. If we had done a speedy keep (which isn't happening apparently), nothing would stop you or any other editor from doing a good faith nomination. Its hard to tell somebody they shouldn't have done a nomination, but since they did, we'll give them what they want. --Rob 07:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While I agree the nom was made in bad faith, I agree he is not notable. Crunch 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Dlyons493 and Crunch. It is a very immoral "revenge" for the AfDs filed against Jason Gastrich's articles, but this article is also not bery notable. Sycthos^Talk 04:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I hereby Abstain myself from these AfDs created in bad faith. Sycthos^Talk 04:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Mr. Till's written works tend to annoy me, but I have encountered them more than once in my research. Notable, but a borderline case. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep nomination made in bad faith as an act of "retaliation." Mark K. Bilbo 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, nomination in bad faith; Till has shown some notable influence in the skeptic community, in large part because of his previous association with evangelical Christianity. And here's something that's amusing: One of the "few people" that Till has debated is Gastrich, after which, Gastrich posted a "gay urges" email forgery. There's obviously a personal history between the two, and I've suggested before that it would be a good idea for someone like Gastrich, who is completely incapable of acting from a neutral POV, to recuse himself from these kinds of things. - WarriorScribe 06:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Dave Horn (WarriorScribe)[15] cannot follow Wikipedia's rules or stay on task without personal attacks. Nonetheless, I'll correct his lie by omission. Several years ago, Farrell Till was suspended for 1 week from posting on my internet forum for being abusive. During the suspension, he broke the rules by registering with a fake name and it was banned. Next, he registered a different, fake name, and it was also banned. Incidentally, both aliases spoke very highly of him. Consequently, I played a bad joke on him by posting that letter, but I did apologize, afterwards. Dave Horn's selective memory and unforgiveness just goes to show why many people don't feel the need to apologize for things and act in a Christian manner on the internet. Detestable people like Dave Horn will hold it against them until the day they die. Fortunately, since I've repented and sought God's forgiveness, I've been forgiven by Christ and that's what really matters.--Jason Gastrich 20:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, just do whatever you like to your fellow man and then ask for forgiveness - "Christianity Nouveau". Obviously this is a personal vendetta, so KEEP. --Censorwolf 21:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, Gastrich sneaks in his stolen-name-domain group, which contains significant lies that have been rebutted and refuted. Of course, those things aren't allowed on Gastrich's group, so it had to be done elsewhere. Here are some specific rebuttals, all of which have sent Gastrich fleeing, and most of which expose his intent and, to put it politely, "imagination:"

• • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

• Having established himself in many venues as disingenuous, at least, there's really not much point in going into whatever details might have occurred before Gastrich's "joke." The fact is that there was noting to omit because it was not relevant to the point. Whateveer might have happened before Gastrich's fraudulent email is entirely irrelevant to the fact that he did issue the fraudulent email. His apology only occurred after he was outed as the forger, and he had no choice. There was no "selective memory" on my part. Whatever excuse that Gastrich might have had for the behavior are entirely irrelevant. It was a juvenile, mean-spirited, hateful thing to do, but it's par for the course for Jason Gastrich, and it helps to establish and affirm a pattern. Gastrich attempts to justify bad behavior by two criteria. First, he will shift the burden of responsibility by blaming another person for "making" him do what he did. Then he'll excuse the whole thing by claiming that God forgives him for it.
• Gastrich believes in "once-saved, always-saved," which means that he can pretty much do anything he wants, regardless of what anyone else thinks of it, and he's "forgiven," so it's all good. What Gastrich almost always forgets is that he's also supposed to be a witness for the Gospel and for Jesus Christ, and so his character and actions must be above reproach. An occasional lapse can be forgiven by others, but when one demonstrates a pattern of false identities, forged emails (we know about one, which means that there may be more), and sock puppets, as well as hostile behavior and sensitivity to criticism, then there is good cause to view anything and everything that he does with suspicion. - WarriorScribe 20:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

More spamming of your hate group and more avoiding responsibility for your heinous behavior. I can't say I'm surprised. --Jason Gastrich 21:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is too concerned about what surprises (or does not surprise) Gastrich. His is the response of a hypocrite and doesn't concern me. He's rebutted, refuted, and exposed as a liar in the specific articles I cite above. 'Tis enough...t'will serve. The only hate that is occurring here is that of Gastrich for those that expose him to the light of day. - WarriorScribe 22:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I was skeptical, but he gets a good deal of hits at Google and five at Scholar Google.[16]--T. Anthony 07:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, and I would advise people against using AfD to start an ideological war. Grandmasterka 10:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, enough google hits and general noise for an article. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Absolutely nothing in the article implies notability. --Pierremenard 13:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 15:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Stub articles on notable people need expansion, not deletion. -- Dragonfiend 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain Shoddy article, borderline notability, POV nomination. --kingboyk 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep; nomination made in bad faith. Jim62sch 19:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• week keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; nomination made in bad faither as per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich --Censorwolf 21:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per WarriorScribe. Nomination in bad faith. MCB 22:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep Notable subject. Article is also linked to by other articles. Brokenfrog 01:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Warriorscribe. Harvestdancer 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 02:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Farrell Till has achieved a level of notability in the skeptic community and has published works considered significant in that community. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Crotalus. Notability established. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not just WP:POINT, but apparently an actual person Gastrich has been in conflict with [17] - Guettarda 13:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and add to the growing RFC against Jason Gastrich. This is a violation of WP:POINT. Stifle 16:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep due to bad faith nomination. Note that this implies no opinion about the notability or otherwise of Farrell Till. I will only consider a good faith nomination. --Spondoolicks 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:48Z
• Keep. Till is borderline notable. However, the article is linked to by other articles and Till turns up many google hits. Incidentally, Gastrich's behavior has exceeded any reasonable bounds. JoshuaZ 03:57, 27 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 Karmafist 06:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reggie Finley

Reggie Finley simply is very notable. he's an internet radio host.

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 03:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn bio. Ruby 03:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep because it was nominated in bad faith as retaliation for a series of AfDs against Christian leader bios yesterday. Ruby 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: So, you read the entry and believed in your heart the entry wasn't notable. Then, you assumed that I nominated in bad faith and changed your vote to spite me? Please keep Wikipedia's best interests in mind. --Jason Gastrich 04:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It could be a one line stub about an atheist talking parrot, and I will vote to keep it rather than allow my name to be part of a series of what are clearly retaliatory AfD actions. Think about the backlash you are generating and the way it is making our Lord appear to those who do not know Him.Ruby 04:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering other AfD's you do I think you are engaging in bad faith and that is undermining the credibility of all AfD's you do. I think this one is valid so voted delete, but I understand the reaction to anything you AfD as I think you are overreacting to something. That "something" is not clear to me, but the alternative is that you aren't too bright and equate leaders of large nations with minor atheist nobodies.--T. Anthony 06:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep; nomination made in bad faith. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep and agree -- nomination for deletion was made in bad faith. Gastrich is clearly retaliating for AfDs on "Christian" articles, which is well within his character. The funny thing is that most of those "Christian" articles were nominated by a professing Christian (and another professing Christian is taking him to task for it on his "talk" page...hurry to read it before he deletes it). Finley's activities as a pioneering Internet radio talk show host, among other things, make him notable. - WarriorScribe 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are obvious WP:POINT issues here but let's try to deal with each article on its own merits. In this case, there are about 100 Ghits and internet radio doesn't impress. Dlyons493 Talk 04:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Infidel Guy" has 237,000 google hits. His show is well-known in critical thinking circles. Arbustoo 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Merit of the individual in question was considered, as well as Gastrich's personal animosity toward atheists, in general, and this atheist, in particular. I believe Finley's accomplishments are reasonably notable enough, which is why I voted "speedy keep." I suspect I'll vote to delete a good number of these. FWIW. - WarriorScribe 04:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If he has a personal grudge against this guy that doesn't make this person notable either I don't think. I'm not wanting to reward his bad behavior, but I wonder if that's making votes here a bit dishonest.--T. Anthony 12:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment My comment was general (I've been pasting the first bit of it!) and wasn't meant to reflect on your, or any other contribution! Dlyons493 Talk 04:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment No problem. I just thought it worth mentioning. You do make a good point, though, and I should have written that, too. - WarriorScribe 04:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not speedy, but the Internet show and reality TV Wife Swap thing is good enough. Crunch 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - per Dlyons493's comments. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Search for his guy under his radio host name. "Infidel Guy" has 237,000 google hits. Arbustoo 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep nomination made in bad faith as "retaliation." Mark K. Bilbo 05:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-He doesn't seem noteworthy as a religion/irreligion themed radio host. The Google count on Reggie Finley is pretty low.[18] As is the count on Reginald Vaughn Finley.[19] No variant of his names turns up anything at Google News or Scholar Google. The intent may been to violate WP:Point, but the argument of non-notability is valid in this case.--T. Anthony 06:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well known radio host many thousands of google hits (237,000 ). Try "Infidel Guy" at google. Arbustoo 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete The article has been improved some to justify notability. However I'm still not convinced, but I'll weaken my delete to recognize some doubt.--T. Anthony 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

He is well known in scientific circles for his promotion of critical thinking. You can download many of his programs. Try searching for "Infidel Guy" Arbustoo 02:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. per T. Anthony. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep bad faith nom. -- Astrokey44|talk 15:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've expanded the article slightly with info from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Atlanta Journal-Constitution. As a podcaster who "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works," he appears to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain Borderline. A weak article, POV nomination, RFC pending. --kingboyk 18:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Search under radio host name ""Infidel Guy." By and far meets wiki crieria. Arbustoo 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The objection to his being an internet radio host is ludicrous coming from a person who touts that he himself "also broadcasts a weekly devotional message on the internet.". Jim62sch 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; bad faith nomination, WP:POINT. MCB 22:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:POINT. On an unrelated note, why do such evangelical hayseeds always come from the US? Eusebeus 23:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My theory is that there's not many butts in the pews of any church outside of the US. Ruby 00:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

US church attendance is higher than other nations with high Internet user per capita. It's a good deal lower than most of Africa, the South Pacific, or much of Latin America. Still let's not get too perjorative as there likely are things in the Evangelical world that should be covered, but aren't.--T. Anthony 01:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 01:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. His radio show (hosts as Infidel Guy) hosts many well known scholars Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, James Randi ect. Blantant bad faith nomination attacking those Gastrich does not agree with. Gastrich knows exactly who he is and that's why this was nominated. "Infidel Guy" (radio host name) has 237,000 google hits. Arbustoo 02:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as per keepsleeping. -Harvestdancer 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark K. Bilbo

Mark Bilbo simply isn't notable. There are a total of 4 sentences about him in this entry. Amazon.com shows his books to be very infrequently purchased. Furthermore, Bilbo's only notability comes from the way he swears and curses at Christians on Usenet, while mocking God and Jesus (see Talk:Mark K. Bilbo#Controversy for more) --Jason Gastrich 03:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 03:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*Delete I know this guy on alt.atheism, it would just break my heart to see his Wiki bio go bye bye. Ruby 03:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) As much as it pains me, I am changing my vote to Keep because it was nominated in bad faith as retaliation for a series of AfDs against Christian leader bios yesterday. Ruby 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There are obvious WP:POINT issues here but let's try to deal with each article on its own merits. In this case, he has books with well-known publishers. Dlyons493 Talk 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, Dlyons493, but a person making a series of bad-faith nominations may be counting on the good nature of Wikipedians participating in AfD to carry what would otherwise be weak keepers over the top and delete them. It is more important when that happens to stop the process and deal with the disruption rather than carry on business as usual. Ruby 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't meant in any personal way - my vote just happened to follow yours and was responding to the general situation rather than what you said. Your point is a valid one. Dlyons493 Talk 04:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - author of numerous books by reputable publishers. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You sure about that? I thought Que Pub was a vanity press. --Jason Gastrich 05:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Que does those big fat overpriced computer books. Ruby 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it's certainly not a vanity press, and seeing that from Gastrich is especially entertaining. - WarriorScribe 16:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't care about his personal opinions, his publishing is notable. Crunch 04:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Crunch, AdelaMae. -- Dragonfiend 05:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, bad faith nomination almost certainly driven by personal animosity for the subject (evidenced by the comments about the "only notability"). Bilbo has a significant publication record from one of the oldest technical publishing houses in the country. Additional notability was explained by me in the debate over Gastrich's previous attempts to vandalize this article - WarriorScribe 05:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep On the talk page he says "Okay, this is too weird: Are you folks sure I'm notable enough to have an article?" and his books are lower than Kenneth Eng at Amazon. There's also too much of a systemic bias in favor of every minor computer writer. Still there are enough books listed that he isn't some fly-by-night character it seems.--T. Anthony 07:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

On consideration I realized I can't justify this considering I've voted to delete authors this minor. Taking out of consideration the fact he might show up and be offended his books seem to be pretty minor and he apparently isn't the leader or inventor of anything much except some website. So switch to delete.--T. Anthony 07:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Notable publisher, very bad faith nomination. Grandmasterka 10:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I count less than 1k google hits. Am I searching correctly? Perhaps I ought to include the middle name (which I do not know?) I must presume that anyone with this few google hits is not very notable. As for being a published author, WP:BIO makes clear that he needs to have two books with an audience of 5,000 or more. Can anyone cite verifiable (read: non self-reported) figures for book sales on this person? If so, and if these figures meet WP:BIO, I will change my vote to keep. Based on the information currently available, however, I must vote to delete. --Pierremenard 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. good handful of books, plus alt.atheism. Bad faith nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Seriously folks. Regardless of the publisher, the guy wrote a book on 'how to use Macwrite.' Chew on that for a minute. Macwrite (while brilliant for it's time) had around the same feature set that notepad for windows currently has. Noteable publisher maybe, but not so notable work. In addition while it seems possible that the original delete request was in bad faith, some of the keep votes seem to be in just as bad faith but on the opposite side of the fence. Delete it. MueX 12:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. Are you arguing that books on obsolete computer software should be deleted? Why? Does that mean presently valid articles will become invalid over time? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain for the moment. I do question the notability of this one, but the abuse of AFD as a political tool is objectionable. --kingboyk 17:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:POINT Jim62sch 18:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an attack nomination, and as the original author of this article, I find it quite insulting. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:BIO Tinus 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. MCB 22:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keeep bad faith nom. The borderline notability of the subject (and others nominated by Gastric), however, means this could be considered for deletion from a credible, reputable editor. Eusebeus 23:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is it necessary to inflame the issue by deliberately altering Jason's last name? Ruby 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - vindictive attack by Gastrich. Bilbo has written some non-fiction educational books - notable.Blnguyen 23:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Arbustoo 01:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 01:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I know Bilbo doesn't want a page. Tough. You're notable. Harvestdancer 02:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, published author, behavior on Usenet not relevant. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael S. Berliner

Berliner simply isn't notable. Unless there is far more information about him, being on the board of an organization and someone who compiles information, like he does, isn't worthy of an entry. --Jason Gastrich 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• • as nominator, your 'delete' vote is assumed.
• Keep notable objectivist. I went along with Bilbo and the other guy because those really were vanity bios, but you have to stop nominating atheists just to make a WP:POINT to JustzisGuy. Ruby 04:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Completely notable. The article needs expansion and references, but that's no reason to delete it. Looks like we're getting into some sort of Christians vs. Atheists debate here and I'd suggest that people evaluate the articles based on their merits not on personal prejudices. Crunch 04:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

At this point it is more important to STOP the tit-for-tat AfD war by discouraging them, never mind the merits of the articles at this time. Ruby 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what I meant -- not directed at you... Crunch 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep; nomination made in bad faith. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are obvious WP:POINT issues here but let's try to deal with each article on its own merits. In this case, reference and expand. Dlyons493 Talk 04:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable philosopher. -- Dragonfiend 05:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, bad faith AfD nomination, Berliner is widely known and notable. - WarriorScribe 05:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Come on... this Afd is downright silly. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination. Mark K. Bilbo 06:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He looks notable. Although I find Ayn Rand's philosophy repellent I don't see what that has to do with anything. There's an article on Ben Klassen, as there should be, and his philosophical views are more universally seen as repellent.--T. Anthony 07:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep and expand. Grandmasterka 10:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Only 14k google hits. Perhaps he has made important contributions to objectivism? Then the article should mention what they are. Yes, some of the Gastrich nomination are ridiculous, but this should not stop us from keeping an article that does not belong. --Pierremenard 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How is 14k worth of hits make this article deletable? Arbustoo 01:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JzG - Guettarda 17:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:POINT. Latinus 18:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. MCB 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Eusebeus 23:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep vindictive nom by Gastrich of a notable person.Blnguyen 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 01:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Hopefully someone can add his works soon. Arbustoo 01:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. His work on Ayn Rand is notable. This is a stub, not a non-notable. -Harvestdancer 02:16, 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 speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Binswanger

There is nothing notable in this entry. Binswanger is an editor and compiles information; certainly not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 04:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 04:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable objectivist as Mr Berliner above, and I don't believe Jason Gastrich should be encouraged to nominate every atheist he can think of to make a point about the multiple noms of religious figures yesterday. Ruby 04:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Bad faith nomination to make a point -- very distasteful. Crunch 04:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete There are obvious WP:POINT issues here but let's try to deal with each article on its own merits. In this case, under 400 Ghits and writings look to be in somewhat partisan places. Dlyons493 Talk 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator severely underrepresents the work and skill involved in editing a philosophical reference work, and omits the fact that Binswanger has also published his own work. Connections with Nagel and Rand and his position with the Ayn Rand Institute are sufficient to put him above the "average college professor". - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruby and AdelaMae. -- Dragonfiend 05:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• "Strong Keep" He is one of the most important people in the Objectivist movement. LaszloWalrus 05:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If we delete this one, we might as well delete Ayn Rand as well. Silly Afd, this is. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm sure the nominator would be find with deleting Ayn Rand. He's trying to delete every atheist he can find. Mark K. Bilbo 06:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sounds like a noteworthy member for this philosophy.--T. Anthony 07:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, notable enough. Grandmasterka 10:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable enough. --Bduke 11:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - with 50k google hits and low amazon.com sales ranks (about 1 book sale per week per book, according to my understanding) this person seems to me to be borderline. --Pierremenard 13:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy merge with Ayn Rand Institute. Bad faith nomination. --FloNight 16:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable --kingboyk 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:POINT. Latinus 18:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. MCB 22:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep vindictive nom by Gastrich of a notable person.Blnguyen 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 01:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Notable scholar from good schools. Arbustoo 01:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable scholar and Ayn Rand is very notable. Harvestdancer 02:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, published author, relatively high up in the ARI cult. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:44, 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 Karmafist 06:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yaron Brook

Besides being the leader of an organization, which, in and of itself isn't necessarily notable, there is nothing else even remotely notable about Brook. --Jason Gastrich 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Another objectivist thinker under a bad-faith attack from the nominator. Ruby 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Ridiculously unfounded nomination just to make a point. Crunch 04:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep; nomination made in bad faith. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep There are obvious WP:POINT issues here but let's try to deal with each article on its own merits. In this case, I wouldn't want to be on a slow boat to China with him but that's not a good enough reason to delete the article. Dlyons493 Talk 04:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep notable director of notable organization. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• "Keep" notable director; notable organization; interviewed on CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, Air America, quite a bit LaszloWalrus 05:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Arbustoo 01:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep WP:NPA, Jason. Tsk. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep bad faith nomination made as part of multiple AfD "retaliation" campaign. Mark K. Bilbo 06:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as well. He sounds to be clearly noteworthy and has been on national news discussion type shows. I am trying to judge these case by case though.--T. Anthony 07:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Me too. Speedy keep, sufficiently notable, president of a notable institute. Grandmasterka 10:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable and nomination is in bad faith. --Bduke 11:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination may very well be in bad faith, but he gets only 20k google hits. Not notable enough of a commentator. --Pierremenard 12:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How does 20k worth of hits make him unnotable? LBU has 300+ hits and it was kept. Arbustoo 01:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge with Ayn Rand Institute. Bad faith nomination. --FloNight 16:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above --kingboyk 18:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. MCB 22:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep vindictive nom by Gastrich of a notable person.Blnguyen 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 01:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Known scholar published and supported by well-known schools. Arbustoo 01:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the president of the Ayn Rand Institute isn't notable??? -Harvestdancer 02:21, 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 Karmafist 06:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Caplan

Caplan is an associate professor, who wrote a few articles, and has a number of opinions. He certainly isn't notable. --Jason Gastrich 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - "Austrian economists have praised him as one of their more knowledgeable and interesting critics" - Also another Randroid being AfD'd in bad faith. Ruby 04:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep; nomination made in bad faith. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, nomination made in bad faith; Caplan is a well-known libertarian and economist, widely published in professional journals in the political, philosophical, and economic realm. - WarriorScribe 04:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. While I agree this was a nom done in bad faith, I don't necessarily see the notability in this prof. Crunch 04:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are obvious WP:POINT issues here but let's try to deal with each article on its own merits. In this case, reasonable Google Scholar results on "Bryan Caplan" Dlyons493 Talk 04:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination. Very bad faith. Mark K. Bilbo 06:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep this guy doesn't look that noteworthy, but squeaks by.--T. Anthony 07:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very bad faith nomination. Notability is there. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 07:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Speedy Keep if that makes sense. Barely notable enough, bad faith nomination. Grandmasterka 10:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable and it does seem these noms are in bad faith. --Bduke 11:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - about 100k google hits. --Pierremenard 12:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak speedy keep per Grandmasterka (makes perfect sense to me!) --FloNight 16:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Durova 16:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above --kingboyk 18:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Jim62sch 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:POINT. Latinus 18:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. MCB 22:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 01:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Notable scholar from George Mason with many publications. Amazing accomplishments for such a young man. Arbustoo 01:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this guy is stongly connected to the two leading schools of libertarian economc thought - Mises AND Rand - and is respected by both. -Harvestdancer 02:25, 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. – Robert 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uplinkearth

• Delete as non-notable: fails WP:WEB. Bcasterline 04:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 04:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; probably advertising. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom Crunch 04:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Ruby 04:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator as NN. --Lockley 18:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 18:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:50Z
• Delete nn incog 19:31, 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 Karmafist 06:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goparaju_Ramachandra_Rao

Rao doesn't have any books listed on Amazon.com. The name brings only 218 hits on Google.com [20]. He simply isn't notable. --Jason Gastrich 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 04:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Nomination of an atheist not made in good faith, part of an ongoing series of retaliation AfD's. Ruby 04:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruby. Crunch 04:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep; nomination made in bad faith. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep There are obvious WP:POINT issues here but let's try to deal with each article on its own merits. In this case, Ghits is not an appropriate criterion. Notable for lifetime's work in India. Dlyons493 Talk 04:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - are books published in India in the 1970s generally listed on Amazon? As co-founder of the Atheist Centre (his wife, Saraswathi, received numerous awards for her work in social reform as well), prolific author and speaker, and an associate of Mahatma Gandhi, it seems obvious that a low number of Google hits for this patently notable person can be attributed to a combination of alternate/misspellings of his name and systemic bias. This man's work was done in a largely non-English-speaking environment, before the advent of the internet. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 05:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. Clearly, a bad faith nomination. Arbustoo 02:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination. Mark K. Bilbo 06:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment expanding a bit: it does strike me as rather ethno-centric to claim this person isn't "notable" based on the information generally available in the English Google, Amazon, and such. I, honestly, don't know how to proceed in gathering more info given it would likely be in Hindi or another of the many languages of India (18 official if I recall correctly). But I'll hazard that anybody who went against the majority culture in his time frame is notable. For example, going against the caste system early as he did was quite a stance. That system is still a major issue in India and it's interesting to note that there is a reactionary Hindu nationalist party that was only just recently voted out of power. I can't help but feeling that to ignore him is to say that prominence and/or significance in a non-Western country is inherently "not notable." Mark K. Bilbo 18:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I'm switching to just keep. Google isn't a good judge on writers from the developping world and I didn't notice the year he died.--T. Anthony 07:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article has had many edits over more than 6 months. Why is it nominated now? We know it is just because he was an atheist. --Bduke 11:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - anyone reading my AfD votes knows I am a HUGE fan of google searches, but in this case this is the wrong way to go. This nomination is remarkably US-centric. Amazon.com is not big on books published by Indian presses decades ago. Nor is an English-google search going to tell you that much about Indian authors. WP:BIO says that for deceased people we must ask: Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field? I note that atheists tend to cite this person as influential - see this history (where he goes by the name of Gora) which cites him as one of the most influential atheists in history or this one (in Russian) which labels him "India's most prominent atheist." In short, its clear that this person deserves a place in the history of atheism. --Pierremenard 12:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pierremenard, also WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Bad faith nomination. Article is pov and needs re-write, but no case for del. FloNight 15:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per the other speedy keeps. Durova 16:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pierremenard. -- Dragonfiend 17:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep In particular I agree with Pierremenard's excellent argument. Avoid systemic bias. --kingboyk 18:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruby and JzG -- Jim62sch 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Latinus 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. MCB 22:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep vindictive nom by Gastrich of a notable person.Blnguyen 23:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 01:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. From article: Atheism Questions and Answers, An Atheist Around the World, An Atheist with Gandhi, The Need of Atheism, and Positive Atheism. From 1949 on, he wrote a column on atheism, and began publishing The Atheist, a monthly, in 1969. Gora's atheism dictated his campaign to abolish the caste system with its "untouchables," and the idea of "karma" or divine fate. Gora died in 1975. VERY IMPORTANT FIGURE in India Independence and important figure in Indian skeptic movement.[21] Bad faith nomination. Arbustoo 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Americans (which includes me) often fail to notice what goes on beyond our border. This guy is quite notable there. Harvestdancer 02:29, 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. Bad faith nom.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Ellen Johnson

Besides being the leader of an organization, which, in and of itself doesn't make someone notable, she isn't notable at all. --Jason Gastrich 04:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 04:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete If original editor wishes to expand the article to show notability then keep it, else delete. TheRingess 04:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Article expanded to show mainstream press appearances and TV appearances. Arbustoo 04:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. President of a very notable organization. Article is still a stub, but that's no reason to delete. Crunch 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I refuse to let a user with a POV and a grudge disrupt WP to make a point. Ruby 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (not a speedy); WP:POINT nomination of a perfectly notable person --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article on notable leader of notable organization; needs expansion not deletion. Ellen Johnson has been a source or topic for The New York Times, Good Morning America, Los Angeles Times, CNN LARRY KING LIVE, The Washington Post, etc. -- Dragonfiend 04:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep There are obvious WP:POINT issues here but let's try to deal with each article on its own merits. In this case, President of a reasonably well-known organisation. Dlyons493 Talk 05:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The organization is notable as is she. People wanting to know what happened to it after Madalyn Murray O'Hair died might be curious of it.--T. Anthony 06:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC) duplicate --kingboyk 16:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Gastrich is apparently just working through the atheist category, nominating every article in some sort of "retaliation." Mark K. Bilbo 06:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as comment just above. --Bduke 11:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see whats notable about her. What has she done to deserve a wikipedia article? Are we going to have an article on every president of a notable organization, even if the person has done nothing notable? --Pierremenard 12:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep per T. Anthony's comment below. --Pierremenard 23:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

She gets about 50,000 hits.[22] And that's in quotes plus subtracting Liberia.(The president of Liberia being named Ellen Johnson Sirle(i)(a)f) She isn't as public as the previous head, but she's been in national news I believe. There was some march they did[23] and the Political Action Committee--T. Anthony 14:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

50,000 Google hits is nothing in the context of a worldwide movement like atheism. I just might accept this as indicative of notability in relatively small contexts/movements/etc.

Well, you know, if you take too "broad" a view of things, what's the point of the Wiki itself? Humans are just a minor species on a trivial planet in a galaxy of billions. In terms of the US American atheist "movement" (so far as the term applies) Johnson is the president of one of the more (if not most) known organizations American Atheists, Inc. Which derives most of its notability from being the organization founded by O'Hair in the wake of the (in)famous prayer in schools suit. Johnson is the first president of the organization after the disappearance and death of O'Hair. She's also the president that got the organization through the period of confusion when O'Hair disappeared. She also appears on national talk shows, is quoted by national publications, and AA, Inc. has lobbiest in D.C. She may not warrant a big bio at this point but I can't see deleting her entirely. Mark K. Bilbo 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Relax! I find it very easy to see why this article should stay, or that it should never have been AfD'd in the first place. Especially not to make a point. But sometimes wikipedians need to convince not by stating what they know to to be true, but by showing why it is true. Cite external sources, etc. - and then 50,000 Google hits (or 30,000, or 25,000) are not going to cut it. Or shouldn't be. AvB ÷ talk 20:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Relax? Oh no, I'm not upset or worked up or anything like that. Just commenting on the issue of notability. I'm actually agreeing with you in a sense (the comment of "notability in a smaller context" that is). She's notable in a local context (US American atheists and organizations) even if that's a "drop in a bucket" from a broader, worldwide point of view. I'm not married to AA, Inc. I'm not even a member. Mark K. Bilbo 20:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And now that I think about it, I could see a merge with an article on AA, Inc. Maybe it's too soon for her to have a separate article? I'm not sure really. Mark K. Bilbo 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's difficult to say. It may even be the other way around - notable now, no longer notable when she steps down. Time will tell. I'm in favor of a separate article now because I have the feeling (due to what is basically my own definition of notability) that many users will start a WP search with Ellen's name as the entry point. It would be nice to have some sort of feedback system regarding actual use. AvB ÷ talk 21:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep PUBLIC LIVES; It's a Harsh Political Climate for a Believer in Nonbelief NYT September 16, 2000 By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and at least five other NYT articles suggest notable. --FloNight 14:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich --Censorwolf 15:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- Clearly notable person. However, the opinions and reasons given so far are not at all convincing: 50,000 Google hits (meagre), mention in the media (mostly without references WP:NOR), prez of a notable org, people might want to know (WP:NOR). No books or other publications mentioned. Come on folks! There must be more. I will come back if I find something. AvB ÷ talk 16:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

PS Like I wrote elsewhere, mm: Actually, anyone with some knowledge of atheism and eyes in his head (or fingers on his hand) can see that Ellen Johnson is notable, both positively and negatively, to millions of people. OK, where notability is disputed, references can clinch it, but really, in this case it's like trying to prove apples taste good (218 Google hits). AvB ÷ talk 16:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A few more complete references: -- Dragonfiend 18:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • HEAVEN; DOES IT EXIST?, ABC News Transcripts, SHOW: Good Morning America 8:06 AM EST ABC, December 19, 2005
    • Dear God: Dee-Fense!, The New York Times, December 11, 2005 Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 14NJ; Column 2; New Jersey Weekly Desk; Pg. 6
    • The Nation; COLUMN ONE; A Time of Doubt for Atheists ; With the religious making inroads in popular culture and politics, nonbelievers yearn for higher power in Washington., Los Angeles Times, July 18, 2005 Monday, Home Edition, MAIN NEWS; National Desk; Part A; Pg. 1
    • Atheists reach out in S.F.; Conclave designed to turn nonbelievers into activists, The San Francisco Chronicle, MAY 20, 2005, FRIDAY,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, Pg. A1,
    • Encore Presentation: What Happens After We Die?, CNN, SHOW: CNN LARRY KING LIVE 9:00 PM EST, April 24, 2005
    • True Non-Believers; In California, One Convention So Over God, The Washington Post, April 12, 2004 Monday, Final Edition, Style; C01,
• Keep, notable --kingboyk 16:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable Jim62sch 17:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, As a subscriber to the NYT, I get archive access. NYT has written 9 articles on Ms. Johnson since 1997. By the same token, both Thomas Ice and Jason Gastrich have had zero articles written about them in the NYT. Jim62sch 17:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

True (completely forgotten I have access too). May well say more about the NYT than about the people you've mentioned though - and, as far as I can tell from the other Keep voters' comments, Ellen Johnson has written zero books, which is not a reason to delete her article. AvB ÷ talk 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Could someone post the titles and dates of those articles on the page? 207.200.116.139 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This link brings up a list. AvB ÷ talk 18:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Only religious bigots want this article deleted. - Darwinek 18:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Latinus 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep to stop point making. We do not delete articles because the nominator dislikes the views on religion of the article's subject. --Rob 22:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After 10 or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep vindictive nom by Gastrich of a notable person.Blnguyen 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 00:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. President of well-known organization and world known author. Also lots of contact with JREF and CSICOP. Arbustoo 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about her being an author? Only two (I think) Amazon.com hits (both e-reprints of short articles from the magazine)].AvB ÷ talk 19:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep WP:POINT. Harvestdancer 02:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Arbustoo, notability established. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep WP:POINT, disrupting Wikipedia. See Jason Gastrich's RFC, which I am seriously considering escalating to AN/I. Stifle 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 06:02Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Lewis

Even as an author, Lewis isn't notable. Zero books on Amazon.com. --Jason Gastrich 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep HELLO he wrote his books in the 1920s before there was even an internet, let alone Amazon. Ruby 04:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Joseph Lewis has 34 books listed on amazon.com (note: the search says 51 hits, but I count 34 of these to be unambiguously attributed to THIS Joseph Lewis).--Pierremenard 12:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruby's explanation of era. Also WP:POINT. Also bad faith nom. Also he's notable. Crunch 04:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Crunch. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, bad faith nomination; Lewis was a major force for rational thought in the days before the growth of significant mass media. Though somewhat eclipsed by later authors and thinkers, he certainly influenced many of them. - WarriorScribe 04:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Many books in an era when they meant a lot more. Very poor nomination. Dlyons493 Talk 05:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Many books in an era when they meant a lot more." That's a great point. - WarriorScribe 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dlyons493|. -- Dragonfiend 05:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep another bad faith nomination by Gastrich. Mark K. Bilbo 06:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sounds notable. Jason really did overdo it with the atheist nominations.--T. Anthony 07:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a notable person. --Bduke 11:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - as I noted in a comment above, the premise of this nomination is false. See Amazon.com hits for Joseph Lewis. Now WP:BIO gives us a criterion for the evaluation of whether a dead person belongs on wikipedia: " Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field? The fact that you can buy his books now on amazon even though hes been dead for a while suggests the answer is an unambiguous yes. --Pierremenard 12:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Your logic, as Spock would say, is impeccable. Ruby 15:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Notable. Obvious bad faith nomination by Gastrich. --FloNight 14:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per FloNight --kingboyk 17:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. --Censorwolf 17:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Note: Jason, Amazon isn't the only bookseller on the planet. Try Half.com, try e-bay, try b&n (Oh, I just noticed that B&N doesn't sell any of Gastrich' books. Oh dear. Jim62sch 18:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC))
• Keep per above. Latinus 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per above. - David Björklund (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After 10 or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep vindictive nom by Gastrich of a notable person.Blnguyen 23:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 00:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Why was this nominated for deletion? Arbustoo 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)*
• Keep per Ruby, Pierremenard, and WP:POINT. Harvestdancer 02:33, 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 speedy keep, president of a country (nothing borderline about this and no reason to waste people's time on this anymore). u p p l a n d 11:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] António Agostinho Neto

Neto simply isn't notable. Nothing in the entry stands out as encyclopedic. --Jason Gastrich 04:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 04:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep President of a fricken country for the love of God. Ruby 04:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and agreed...if one has been the president of a country, I suspect that's at least a teensy bit notable... - WarriorScribe 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Presidents of countries are always notable. Carioca 04:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. He was the president of a country, for pete's sake. Doesn't get a whole lot more notable than that. Can we stop now? Crunch 04:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and speedy keep as above --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep' President of a country, notable enough. --Terence Ong 04:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep At best, an unresearched nomination but we are asked to assume good faith. Dlyons493 Talk 05:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruby's "President of a fricken country for the love of God." -- Dragonfiend 05:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Angola is a nation of over 10 million people so its first President should be in least as notable as Sveinn Björnsson(First President of Iceland)--T. Anthony 06:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination made because the man is identified as an atheist. Mark K. Bilbo 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James W. Prescott

Prescott isn't notable. Nothing in this entry is remarkable or encyclopedic. --Jason Gastrich 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Dripping with notability, nominated probably because his views on sexuality are more tolerant than some. We've finished the atheist series and now we're doing the pro-LGBT series. Ruby 04:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, bad faith nomination, Prescott is a well-known and notable behavioral psychologist, widely published in his field, and the developer of S-SAD theory. Check his c.v. - WarriorScribe 04:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruby. Crunch 04:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above, clear WP:POINT nomination --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep A poor nomination. Dlyons493 Talk 05:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above except nominator. -- Dragonfiend 05:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep another bad faith nomination. Anybody checked to see if he just working through the "atheist" category, nominating every entry? Mark K. Bilbo 06:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - looks notable to me. Canley 09:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly notable. --Bduke 11:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - from reading the article, it seems like he's made notable contributions to psychology. --Pierremenard 12:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I see also that his work is repeatedly cited by academics. --Pierremenard 12:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep CalJW 14:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep notable per article and c.v.. --FloNight 15:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable --kingboyk 17:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. --Censorwolf 17:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - quite notable. Jim62sch 18:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep due to notability and WP:POINT. Latinus 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After 10 or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep vindictive nom by Gastrich of a notable person.Blnguyen 23:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 00:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. These nominations by Gastrich are turning into a joke. Wikipedia is not for editors to act as if they are children who do not get their own way. Arbustoo 01:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. OMG, I just can't believe this. Harvestdancer 02:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Strong Keep and obvious bad-faith on the part of the nominator. Logophile 14:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. Blatantly WP:POINT. Stifle 16:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 06:03Z
• Keep as bad-faith nomination. TestPilot 04:45, 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 speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Reisman

Reisman is a professor and wrote a book, but this certainly doesn't fulfill Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Jason Gastrich 04:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 04:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Another associate of Ayn Rand nominated by a naughty person. Ruby 04:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruby --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, one can tell by the nominator's sarcastic language ("is a professor and wrote a book") that this is another in a series of retaliatory AfDs. Reisman is a widely-regarded economist and economic theorist held in wide regard in that community, as evidenced in this article, in which the author puts Reisman on a par with economists Adam Smith, Karl Menger, et al. - WarriorScribe 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. His CV justifies his notability. Crunch 04:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Following the nominator's example, I'm thinking about nominating Jesus for deletion. I mean, he was the son of God and everything, but he's just not that notable. (Plus, I'm a Buddhist.) Dbtfz 04:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  I agree. Only some people believe he was the son of God and he has no sales on Amazon, last I checked. Crunch 05:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

At this point Jesus would probably be ashamed to have a bio on Wikipedia, the way his purported followers are making vindictive nominations on AfD these days. Ruby 05:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

People of many groups have done these vindictive AfD's. In a few weeks will likely have someone of a very different group acting out after some article they cherish is erased. On the other thing I think Jesus has greater things to think about then what Wikipedia does or does not cover.--T. Anthony 12:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Clearly above-average professor. Dlyons493 Talk 05:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above except nominator. -- Dragonfiend 05:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' per those who oppose to deletion. --Terence Ong 06:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep another bad faith, retaliation nomination. Mark K. Bilbo 06:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - clearly an important academic. --Bduke 11:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bad faith nomination. CalJW 14:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Can we have a new speedy keep category, "laughable nomination"? Sliggy 14:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable --kingboyk 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. --Censorwolf 17:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Jim62sch 18:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:POINT. Latinus 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I've never heard of Prof. Reisman. His article states he's a professor....and he wrote a book....and he was a close associate of someone else. I'm not voting, but what in the article should induce me to vote keep? Jcuk 19:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After 10 or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep vindictive nom by Gastrich of a notable person.Blnguyen 23:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep with recommendation that nomination to AfD be seen as one done in bad faith. Prof. Reisman is a regular speaker at Mises Institute and other think-tank events, and is highly regarded by even his ideological adversaries. Dick Clark 00:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Known and respected scholar. Arbustoo 01:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - respected by Objectivists and Miseans. -Harvestdancer 02:37, 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly Out of Order

Article about a website/webcomic, makes no assertion of meeting WP:WEB. W.marsh 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete combination webcomic and forum. Webcorum? Ruby 04:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crunch 04:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

'restating'lemme restate everything to make more sense, its a place for Webcomic artists to show off their work and get good creative input. Over the past year it has grown more popular amoung the webcomic community. However if it isn't good enough to be put on Wikipedia then delete.User: NicholasTreat

This really isn't a slight against your website, it's just that Wikipedia has inclusion guidelines because this is an encyclopedia, not a web directory, etc. Some of my favorite sites don't meet WP:WEB either. --W.marsh 05:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- doesn't meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 05:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as patent non-notable web forum. 82 registered users. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 06:04Z

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Yoshi. – Robert 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yoshee

Yoshee means beautiful one born in the summer time in Japanese. It's a rare name and very nice. There are only so many with that name. 1% of the world, maybe not even. "Yo, she is cool." That is a common sentence for hippy people, that's what some people reffer to. There's a game, "Yoshi and Mario." Complete nomination for original nominator TheRingess 04:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-encyclopedic ramblings. Ruby 05:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Yoshi. Seems like a plausible misspelling that might be searched on here. Youngamerican 05:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Youngamerican. Crunch 05:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Youngamerican. --Terence Ong 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Youngamerican. --T-rex 06:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn crap. incog 18:30, 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 keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Rovics

Rovics isn't notable. He's a singer with free music on the web. Plus, this entry reads like an advertisement. --Jason Gastrich 05:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 05:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We'll be nominating his Boxcar Betty next. Oh, we already did! Dlyons493 Talk 05:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Okay now you're talking Jason. More like this one, please. Ruby 05:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep with possible rewrite; "grassroots" musicians are a special case per WP:MUSIC, and this one in particular gets a lot (I mean a lot) of Google hits as well as coverage in thngs like Indymedia. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 05:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Musicians covered by The Washington Post ("On America's Stage, Performance Protest" January 29, 2003) and Los Angeles Times ("Political opinions, in the key of E", March 14, 2003) seem notable to me. -- Dragonfiend 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep yep, another bad faith nomination made as some kind of "retaliation." Mark K. Bilbo 06:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He's at Google News and they discuss his music there. (It isn't an article like "hey look at this guy named 'X' who I met on the bus to work today", in case someone wonders about my delete vote on Seaborg) This is good enough for me.--T. Anthony 07:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep He's quite famous!
• Speedy Keep, asserts strong notability under WP:MUSIC. Looks like none of the Gastrich nominations are going to get deleted. But then again, did he expect any of them to? Grandmasterka 10:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep About 213,000 google hits. This is a no-brainer. My suggestion is that the nomination be withdrawn. --Pierremenard 11:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as protest musician. Crunch 14:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mike Dillon 15:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, apparently notable protest singer. --kingboyk 17:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Quite notable, and I will not support any delete that is made in bad faith. Jim62sch 18:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:POINT. Latinus 18:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nomination, reasonably notable, independent musical artist - WarriorScribe 21:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After 10 or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep vindictive nom by Gastrich of a notable person.Blnguyen 23:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Notable. Shame on the nominator who's nominating a string of biographies he does not agree with. Arbustoo 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - On the protest circuit, he's huge. Harvestdancer 02:41, 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 Speedily deleted by Zoe by CSD:A7. Stifle 16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Dodge

I would've speedied but article claims notability. Even if this is a real person, the claims seem so outrageous as to be a hoax, plus no references cited. Delete TheRingess 05:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Strip the hoaxy stuff and it's a textbook nn-bio. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 05:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete That's two good noms in a row, Jason. Ruby 05:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (is that also Jason?) Crunch 05:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, no. But it still needs to go. Ruby 05:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Terence Ong 06:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. Latinus 18:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deleted, nn-bio User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:13, 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. Punkmorten 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centering Prayer

Instructions to do a nn neologism Wikipedia is WP:NOT an instruction manual. Unverifiable term from a nn website that has stayed too long as a link in the article Pray.-- Perfecto 05:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Perfecto 05:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - article has been rewritten. --Perfecto 05:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic guide to doing some religious thing. Ruby 05:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crunch 05:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite Horrible article but well-known term. Dlyons493 Talk 05:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well done on speedy rewrite Amherst5282! Dlyons493 Talk05:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. --Perfecto 05:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; important concept in more than one religious tradition; 135,000 Google hits; current article is a good start. Antandrus (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 06:06, 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 keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Schwartz

Schwartz isn't notable. He's a journalist and on a board and those things certainly aren't worthy of a Wikipedia entry. --Jason Gastrich 05:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 05:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wow, Jason's first objectivist nom that's actionable. Ruby 05:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless article is expanded to demonstrate notability more clearly Dlyons493 Talk 05:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No case made for notability. Crunch 05:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment another bad faith nomination. He's apparently going after every atheist he can find. Mark K. Bilbo 06:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Objectivists make sure to be overrepresented online, but still if he headed a magazine important enough to be on Wiki that's enough by a hair.--T. Anthony 07:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. searching +"Peter Schwartz" +Ayn (Ayn is to eliminate other people called Peter Schwartz) does return a sufficient number of websites about him, including a couple of books on Amazon.com. At least two of his books, Inevitable Surprises: Thinking Ahead in a Time of Turbulence and The Return of the Primitive : The Anti-Industrial Revolution seems to have recieved a wide audience.--Ezeu 07:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, good search Ezeu. Kappa
• Keep - notable. --Bduke 11:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - I don't know that this person has done much to deserve a wikipidea aritlce. Certainly, hes written a lot of opinion pieces....WP:BIO says he needs to be a writer for a journal with over 5,000 circulation. Can this be verified for this guy? --Pierremenard 11:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ezeu or merge with The Intellectual Activist (no admin intervention or AfD required) and note WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per Ezeu, T. Anthony--FloNight 14:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ezeu. -- Dragonfiend 17:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above, for reasons of notability --kingboyk 17:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Jim62sch 17:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Latinus 18:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• merge with father. Jcuk 19:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After 10 or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep vindictive nom by Gastrich of a notable person.Blnguyen 23:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 01:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well known Ayn philosophy scholar. Arbustoo 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. If this weren't a stub, it would be obvious that he's notable. -Harvestdancer 02:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Schwartz is considered cult leader Leonard Peikoff's second-in-command. And the article is suitably short. Keep an eye on this one to ensure it doesn't get filled with exaggerations, but it should be kept since this meets verifiability requirements. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:38, 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. --Deathphoenix 01:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Seaborg

Seaborg isn't notable in the slightest. Not sure why this article was ever created. There are tens of thousands of biologists and activists and nothing makes this one stand out or worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 05:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 05:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, the son of a famous person. Ruby 05:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No case made other than being the son of. Crunch 05:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless article is expanded to demonstrate notability. Nothing on Google Scholar and one isn't notable by association. Dlyons493 Talk 05:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 05:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 05:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda has been anti-Gastrich since he first heard my name and religion. Now, I see he cares little about the validity of the entry and thinks veto when he sees my name. I apologize to Wikipedia on his behalf. --Jason Gastrich 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich appears to be systematically nominating bios of evolutiionary biologists, atheists and LBTG subjects in relatiation for AFD nominations of several of "his" bios. These are by their very nature bad faith and POINT violations. Guettarda 05:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but now Jason is nominating people who really are not notable, and we can accord him the dignity owed to any other person who devotes their time to Wikipedia. Ruby 06:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually my main reason for voting keep here is that I trust that the original author of this article is unlikely to write an article about a non-notable person. I'm more than willing to give hm the benefit of the doubt, especially when the nom in part of Gastrich's POINT violation (which has now degerated into personal attacks against me). Guettarda 17:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Disregarding from the schism between two wikipedians and voting on the subject matter instead. David Seaborg is most notable for founding World Rainforest Fund, an organisation which is even less notable than he is--Ezeu 05:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
• Delete Doesn't seem to be much except someone's kid. I found an article mentioning a David Seaborg at Google News, but I think it was a different guy. (All it said was that David Seaborg was a "man on the street" who uses the Nordic Track to lose weight, nothing notable there even if it is this David Seaborg)--T. Anthony 07:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The San Francisco Chronicle seesm to turn to him for such quotes every few months. See "TWO CENTS; How do you keep fit at home?" (December 31, 2005), "TWO CENTS; The luckiest person you know?" (OCTOBER 28, 2005), "TWO CENTS; A case of perfect timing?" (MAY 20, 2005), "TWO CENTS; A sight you'll never forget?" (JANUARY 14, 2005), "TWO CENTS; What's the sweetest thing your mama ever did for you?" (MAY 7, 2004), "TWO CENTS; How did you meet your sweetie?" (FEBRUARY 13, 2004), etc. For what it's worth, Seaborg's mom helped him get a snake out of a radio, and he met his sweetie on a train. -- Dragonfiend 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay then it is the same guy. So he's a human interest figure in San Francisco then. Human interest figures in LA have been deleted and that's a bigger town. Most of the other stuff cited on him is just that he's in a list of protesters. As his name his famous they might have just noted he was in the group due to that. At best he's of local northern California interest. If he gets elected to something in San Francisco maybe he'll merit an article.--T. Anthony 00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Added to that there is so little here you can copy it and add it to the article on his father. I considered adding to the Telly Savalas article the information that his son Nick voiced "Stavros" in the Batman: The Animated Series episode "Fire from Olympus", but I'm not sure Nick Savalas warrants an article of his own.--T. Anthony 00:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 402 google hits. Need I say more? --Pierremenard 10:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the father. Note violation of WP:POINT and see also per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to merger.--T. Anthony 14:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete article fails to demonstrate this person's significance/notability. Sliggy 15:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge/redirect to his father per above --kingboyk 17:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable. — Dunc|☺ 17:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Is notable enough, though barely.--ragesoss 17:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be stepping out of his father's shadow and gaining notability as a peace activist. For example, four California newspapers (The Alameda Times-Star, The Daily Review, The Oakland Tribune, and Tri-Valley Herald) carried a story that "More than 1,200 people protesting President George W. Bush's nuclear weapons policy held a rally and peaceful demonstration at William Paine Park and the Lawrence Livermore Lab Sunday afternoon. The rally -- emceed by Miguel Molina of KPFA radio of Berkeley -- featured dozens of guest speakers, including David Seaborg, Marylia Kelley of Tri-Valley Cares and William Underbaggage, a Native American peace activist." -- Dragonfiend 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After a dozen or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Son of famous scholar [24][25] and famous scientist in his own right.[26][27][28] Nominator is a fundamentalist Christian and has nominated a string of atheists out of vengence. Arbustoo 01:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has actual accomplishments. --Calton | Talk 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:POINT. Harvestdancer 02:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. Do not just vote auto-keep because of WP:POINT. So the nomination may have been made in bad faith, I do not endorse his actions or beliefs, but I really don't think this guy is notable enough. - Hahnchen 03:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand with more information. Calwatch 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment can someone please include in the article itself the information that is causing all these keep votes? Thanks. Sliggy 12:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. All votes referencing the nominator rather than the merits of the article should be discounted. Logophile 14:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The alternative is to close this AfD and renominate it so we can vote on the merits of the wiki article, not the nominator. Some of us don't care for the ongoing schisms vis-à-vis the nominator. A bad article cannot be kept merely because the nominator has (or is perceived to have) a problem. --Ezeu 14:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, this is actually a delete. The nomination may or may not have been bad faith, and I don't actually care, but there's no evidence of WP:BIO being hit here. Stifle 16:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If I (the article's author, from some time back) were to try and defend this as notable (and I am not necessarily doing that), I would say something like: "A child of a notable person is obviously not, for that reason, notable. However, it could plausibly be argued that if the otherwise possibly unnotable child has done something relating to the notability of the parent which is in some way quite interesting, it could make it notable. In this instance, it is somewhat interesting that the son of the discoverer of plutonium, and head of the AEC, became an anti-nuclear activist." But that would probably be a stretch. Anyway, it is just a little stub, Wikipedia will be no better or worse off no matter what happens to it, in my opinion; I have really no investment either way, and I am not writing this in any sort of remorseful tone. In all reality I'm not sure why I wrote the article in the first place -- I must have been making some edit's to his father's article and thought, "Oh, I'll throw the son in too." Not much of a reason, in retrospect! --Fastfission 02:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think he can merit a mention in an article about his dad. This seems acceptable and has precedent.--T. Anthony 11:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Let's keep to a single set of standards for believers and unbelievers alike. Uncle Davey 10:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is user's 4th edit. --Pierremenard 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So what? Weren't you new once? Did people give you a hard time so now you have to like pass it on? Uncle Davey 09:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Votes from new users are generally discounted, especially if they're invited from outside as you were. Please see WP:SOCK under 'meatpuppetry'. --Malthusian (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I rather doubt that he was active in AfD when he first started. For someone to be active this soon in AfD they are either a regular using a pseudonym or a friend who has be recruited for the specific purpose of voting. I can vouch you are not a pseudonym of Jason Gastrich, so were you asked to come? Or did you just happen to stumble on the AfD page in your first few edits? David D. (Talk) 09:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I never made any secret that I was asked, because I really cannot see what the problem is with that. Any other site would be happy to make new recruits. If you compare and contrast this to something like Reggie Finley's site, I have to say that there I was never treated as less than equal because I was new. The fact that that has happened here I find disgusting. I don't treat people like that who turn up on my groups and sites. And another thing, David, as you, being a co-moderator of that group are very well aware, the Google2 Beta group called maleboge.org also has been recruiting people into Wikipedia to beef up your side. So if you think that this "meatpuppetry" - a phrase I never heard anywhere but on this particular site - is so wrong in your view (remember, it isn't in my opinion) then aren't you the more to be blamed for being implicated in it than I am? You are in my experience one of the more fair-minded people on your side, so I hope you'll take due account of that point. Uncle Davey 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist on polarising this as sides. I don't know what you mean about recruiting. Possibly there was commentary but since all involved had been active in wikipedia for a while (except WarriorScribe) i don't see whom was recruited to where. You'll have to be more specific. In some cases i was recruited to articles by Jason Gastrich himself. You can see that on my talk page. Ironic isn't it. More often than not newbies are helped a lot by the community. Your appearance in less than neutral territory, with a metaphorical gun, no less, meant you lost your honeymoon period. I am certain that if you leave Gastrichs shadow you will get the welcome you deserve. David D. (Talk) 10:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Davey:I have to say that there I was never treated as less than equal because I was new. The fact that that has happened here I find disgusting. I'm sorry to hear that you are disgusted. However, wikipedia has policies, and one of these is that votes of new users are usually discounted in controversial or close votes for deletion. Hopefully, you can understand why the policy is here: if it wasn't: (a) votes for deletion would be vulnerable to sockpuppets (b) votes for deletion would turn into campaigning contests, testing which side can garner more personal friends to go and vote. Anyway, I'm afraid the policy is not up for vote or for a debate here. If you are interested in debating the policy, please go to Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_deletion --Pierremenard 14:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Please note that this user (User:Usenetpostsdotcom) is a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich, the same user who started this AFD. Mr. Gastrich was the one who created "Uncle Davey"'s User Page, and that page consists of the same text as that of another of Mr. Gastrich's suspected sockpuppets (User:Wiggins2). -Colin Kimbrell 14:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Mr Kimbrell, this is demonstrably not the case. Please withdraw your comment. If you actually go to the website whose name is not so subtly encoded in my nym, you will see that I don't look at all like him, and you will also find ways to e-mail me. If you or any nominee of yours wishes to e-mail me with their telephone number, then I will ring them up and you can decide for yourselves whether I can even talk like a Californian, or whether I am the limey living in Poland that I claim to be. If you are so poor at checking your assertions as you have been in my case, then may I ask what business you have editing an encyclopedia? Uncle Davey 18:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, bad faith nomination, WP:POINT. --Malthusian (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• merge with Glenn T. Seaborg or delete, it is the only page that links here. David D. (Talk) 09:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nomination. TestPilot 05:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. What do you expect, I am an inclusionist! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:00, 11 February 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, this nomination is too soon after the last one. --Deathphoenix 01:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Sinjin (2nd nomination)

Sinjin isn't notable. He has only 428 Google hits[29]. He's the author of one book and certainly not notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Went through AfD two weeks ago with no consensus. Only claim to fame a minor web site. Crunch 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep I voted Delete in its recent Afd at [30] but it's far too soon to re-nominate it. Dlyons493 Talk 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 05:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Crunch. Ruby 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable person. --Ezeu 05:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. I thought maybe this person was living in a nation where this might be noteworthy, but apparently it's an American.--T. Anthony 07:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Sean Sinjin is not an American. Galgitron 15:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Actually, the first AfD was brought because User:Galgitron felt there were some privacy issues in the edit history and was asking for deletion of the article because of that, which is really not a criterion for deletion. Notability or WP:BIO-worthiness was not mentioned. This being the case, I suggest that this nomination by User:Jason Gastrich is not disruption to prove a point, but instead is now a "proper" policy/guideline-based nomination instead. howcheng {chat} 07:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems fairly notable, also this is slightly too soon to renominate the article for AfD. JIP | Talk 08:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 428 google hits. I have more. Wheres my wikipedia page? --Pierremenard 10:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - too soon to renominate. --Bduke 11:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep too soon for renomination, also per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Terence Ong 13:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep for notability and Strong keep per WP:POINT. --FloNight 14:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to whatever book he wrote. If article for the book, then delete. Hurricanehink 17:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:POINTJim62sch 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't assert notability, and doesn't actually appear to be notable --kingboyk 17:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep to soon to renominate for whatever reason. Jcuk 19:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make it us vs. them and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 21:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After a dozen or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Also he is a published author. Cyde Weys 23:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Arbustoo 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 2: OK I was unaware of the RFC but aren't most of the keep votes essentially just knee-jerk reactions to the nominator? Can people just consider the article's merits in making a decision? howcheng {chat} 01:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. This article is going to be kept to make a point. It seems like few people have even bothered to look at it. --Ezeu 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Too soon to renominate.Arbustoo 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Too soon"? That might make sense if the first AfD nomination was for a valid reason. There's no minimum time span required for renomination for deletion. Although I don't approve of Gastrich or his actions, this nomination is based on Google hits and notability, and as such, the article should be considered on its merits without regards to who nominated it or the previous AfD. howcheng {chat} 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Arbustoo and WP:POINT. Harvestdancer 02:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Reactionary voting to make a point brings no honor to the individuals so voting or to Wikipedia. Either the article meets the guidelines or it doesn't. All votes based on who the nominator is should be discounted. Logophile 13:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • correctomundo! Many editors are voting to make a point, however, Wikipedia is not a battleground – furthermore, admins should disregard from votes that are not adequately motivated since Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Ezeu 14:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per --a.n.o.n.y.m. TestPilot 05:24, 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talzhemir

She isn't notable. Nothing here stands out. It's a vanity piece. --Jason Gastrich 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Jason, you were the nominator. I don't think you have to vote again.

Neat trick, looks like two votes that way. Ruby 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

In any case, using the adjective "strong" is neither necessary nor useful when nominating. Sliggy 17:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, we don't count it twice. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. Crunch 05:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Crunch. These are okay Jason, but no more presidents of Angola. Ruby 05:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 06:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Just to be contrarian. More seriously if she co-founded something that has an article I think that gives a bit of justification. Added to that four articles and a list link here and "'Talzhemir'-wikipedia" gets a good deal of hits.[31] Possibly they are all for the other Talzhemir's out there, but I'll play it safe and go weakly for keep.--T. Anthony 07:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - contrary to the opinion of the previous vote, I do not think 8k google hits is very much at all. What notability criteria listed in WP:BIO does this person satisfy? --Pierremenard 10:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That's making sure to minus anything with the word "wikipedia" in it. I think if this is deleted there should be consideration of deleting the things that link here or articles on games she created. Because if she's non-notable than presumably it means those are also non-notable.--T. Anthony 12:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. A game may be notable, without its designer being notable. --Pierremenard 13:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How would you feel about merging some of this with Dragon's Eye Productions as the article is quite small so adding information on leading figures won't make it huge or anything.--T. Anthony 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That would probable be a good idea. --Pierremenard 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - this one really should go. --Bduke 11:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not establish significance or notability. Sliggy 17:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• If there's anything worth merging, Merge, otherwise Delete, per above. --kingboyk 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, despite bad faith nomination. It seems to me that a "vanity piece" is one that is written by a person for that same person. - WarriorScribe 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-bio (just to show I'm not just reflexively voting "keep" on Jason Gastrich's nominations). MCB 23:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but note the WP:POINT violation. Harvestdancer 02:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, or slight merge to the company. However, I still think that AFDing every other atheist in the Wikipedia is WP:POINT. Stifle 16:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it fails the Newsbank/Proquest test. Calwatch 04:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As stated above, this is not a vanity piece because I'm not her. I started this short bio because she's a notable person for several reasons: She was one of the two people who founded Dragon's Eye Productions and Furcadia, a unique online game which has an estimated 60,000 players (and continuing to grow after 9 years). She is a prolific writer and artist, contributing to many games (some that I didn't mention because of respect for her privacy). She also writes extensively on the subjects of conservation and Atheism (which is why I put Atheist in the categories), and esoteric subjects like Bog iron (notice in the external links on that page, there's a link to something she wrote on bog iron. That link was there long before I started editing Wikipedia). Besides, almost 8,000 hits (these are all her, I checked a random sampling of them) is nothing to sniff at. Other people involved in video games like Jukka Tapanimäki and Chuck Bueche have much fewer google results, and yet they have undisputed articles on Wikipedia. For the above reasons, Talzhemir is definately notable and worthy of a short Wikipedia article, and I wish I could've made my case before so many people voted (I was away from computers for a few days). Oh well... -kotra 08:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kotra. TestPilot 05:28, 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 Redirect to Calvin and Hobbes. I am redirecting there because the content from this article was merged into Calvin and Hobbes. It needs to be redirected there to preserve GFDL (well, that's what I think, anyway). --Deathphoenix 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicator

It was agreed to merge the information on this page with the Cardboard Boxes section of the Calvin and Hobbes page. The information on the page is now redundant and since the strip is no longer active, there is no potential for expansion. Delete. —simpatico ^hi 05:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Redirect and suggest nom take a look at Wikipedia:Redirect. Nifboy 05:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that redirecting the word "duplicator" to a Calvin and Hobbes page would be a very good idea. Whoever's searching for it may not be looking for something Calvin and Hobbes related, and if they aren't familiar with the strip, it'd be very confusing for them to be sent to the C&H page after searching for, say, a machine that duplicates things (or whatever, I don't know). This is especially so since the information on Calvin's Duplicator is quite far down the C&H page. However, more experienced Wikipedians may disagree. —simpatico ^hi 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Replicator (Star Trek). Ruby 05:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But the Duplicator is a Calvin and Hobbes creation and has nothing to do with Star Trek - that doesn't make sense. —simpatico ^hi 06:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying the Calvin and Hobbes duplicator is so not-notable it's better to use the article as a redirect in case someone is looking for the star trek replicator but types duplicator by mistake. Ruby 06:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've never heard of the Star Trek replicator, but nevertheless feel the Duplicator would kick its ass. :) Obviously, people's awareness of these fictional objects varies, but since "Duplicator" and "Replicator" are not the same word and do not refer to the same, or even related, things, it doesn't make sense for the former to redirect to the latter. If any redirect is done, it should be to the C&H page. —simpatico ^hi 08:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Seeing as there are two different opinions, disambig it. Stifle 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Disambig is fine, though I've never heard "duplicator" for star trek replicators. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 06:08Z
• Disambig per Stifle. Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 01:26, 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 all. Mailer Diablo 06:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay Mackay, Nadia Tan, Chuck Taylor (filmmaker)

Appears to be hoax. Part of a series by Sassaffraz (talk · contribs), also including Maya Bankovic. Fan1967 02:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I have merged the three AfDs. The other AfD, for Bankovic, has been out for several hours. Fan1967 02:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as possible hoax. Only 343 unique Google results [32], none of which seem to be relevant. By the way, I suggest you merge all these AfD nominations. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't mean to seem ignorant, but how do you do that? Fan1967 02:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge all the discussions into one and redirect them to the page chosen for discussion. Royboycrashfan 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Bucketsofg 02:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoaxes all. --Deville (Talk) 03:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Adios. --Khoikhoi 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Deville. Ardenn 05:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Either {{hoax}} articles or non-notable biographies, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  15:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not even good hoaxes. MikeWazowski 05:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else JackO'Lantern 05:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, all are a hoax. --Terence Ong 14:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note I've been trying to do some searching on all four. Best I can figure out, they're a bunch of young film students at York University in Toronto. All have listed ages under 25. All except Tan can be found in the student directory. A few (very few) of the titles actually seem to exist as 10-minute short films with no distribution. A few of the moderately notable names mentioned, John Greyson and Antonin Lhotsky, are on the faculty. Marcos Arriaga was associated with the school; he graduated there in 2003. Fan1967 05:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan1967. Sanctions against User:Sassaffraz warmly welcomed. Slowmover 19:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable.JohnnyBGood 21:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. RomeoVoid 04:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. I previously raised this bunch for discussion at the Canadian notice board as to whether any of them were actually notable, and got nothing. I've also more than once had to revert several of them from the list of notable directors at Cinema of Canada; none of them, at this point, have ever made a film which qualifies as notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Bearcat 07:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Some sort of weird vanity/hoax. Nigelthefish 14:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• NOTE: I did not include Sanguedolce or Arriaga in this AfD. From what I can tell, they may have some marginal claim to notability. The others have none at all, and are basically hoaxes. I believe these two should be AfD'ed separately. Fan1967 16:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Splitting the other two out into separate AfD's. Fan1967 18:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Moe ε 02:07, 1 April 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. – Robert 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese current events

The last time anyone actually added something to this page was on September 30, 2005. Almost two months have passed. The fact of the matter is, no one uses this page, either by viewing it since you'd have to click on various links to ever arrive here, or editing it. Any current events in China should simply be added to the world current events page. KI 05:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and hold the page until the Chinese government allows Wikipedia access to the people of their country again. Ruby 05:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is a whole series of these articles. Some are updated at the moment and others aren't. China is rather important and deleting the article won't help the coverage of Chinese events to get started again. CalJW 14:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep may get more usage at a later date, theres a whole series of things like wikiprojects and portals at wikipedia which die out for a couple months but will be revived -- Astrokey44|talk 18:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Latinus 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. utcursch | talk 04:43, 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 keep. – Robert 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian current events

This page was last edited on November 30, 2005. November 30. Thats over two months ago! No one edits nor views this page. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese current events. KI 05:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There is a whole series of these articles. Some are updated at the moment and others aren't. India is rather important and deleting the article won't help the coverage of Indian events to get started again. I've recategorised it so that more people will see it. CalJW 14:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per caljw -- Astrokey44|talk 18:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Latinus 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How do we know nobody looks at it? Jcuk 19:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with CalJW. - Ganeshk (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. User:Hemanshu is a bit inactive now. utcursch | talk 04:39, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 05:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kristina costi

Non-notable biography. Nonsense article. Zero Google hits. Zen611 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. vanity. Crunch 05:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yup. Melchoir 05:50, 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 KEEP. Harro5 05:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Gary

As we know, Wikipedia is not a memorial. While his death is sad, this guy isn't notable enough for a bio entry. Harro5 05:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)