Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle Bill


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 11:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Eagle Bill
Eagle Bill has played a very important role in the develpment of the vaporizer- system in general and has played an even bigger role in the promotion of vaporizing as an alternative to smoking (medical-)marijuana.

The 'crack pipe'(?) he disigned is available from Dutch pharmacies, and is recommended by physicians.

Thousands of people around the world know his name and respect his work!

Non-notable. Delete Arm 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep has 24900 Google hits ("Eagle Bill"+Vaporizer has 14700 hits) and he seemes to be the inventor of the 'Eagle Bill vaporising system'. Notable for me Gu 15:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Whats so notable about him? He created a vaporizer for marijuana that looks like a straight copy of a crack pipe. Having alot of Google hits isnt enough to justify a keep to me.--Arm 23:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. NTK 21:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

''This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!'' &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Arm's expanded comment, which should really have been given to start. "Non-notable" is a crap reason to call for deletion. Stifle (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah your right Stifle. I always forget putting in the comments. --Arm 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, a lot of the google hits appear to be third party sites discussing the product. Kappa 09:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What third parties discuss Eagle Bill? And no, I dont mean commercial sites trying to sell something. Wikipedia is not an advertising space. --Arm 08:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 'keep please many third parties discuss it Yuckfoo 06:29, 16 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.