Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/James Combs: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:06, 20 January 2006 editLerner~enwiki (talk | contribs)401 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:53, 30 August 2022 edit undoJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors372,373 editsm Fix Linter errors. 
(62 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was
'''Delete''' --] <sup>]</sup> 18:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{afdnewbies}}
'''This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected ] of {{user|Jason Gastrich}}, {{User|Wiggins2}}. See his : they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.'''
----
As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see ]. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
----

*'''Rebuttal''': Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted ''only'' because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Misplaced Pages. --] 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
**Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per ] it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. ]] 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

----
Minor figure "notable" mainly as the provost of a diploma mill. '''Delete'''. ] 05:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Minor figure "notable" mainly as the provost of a diploma mill. '''Delete'''. ] 05:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as leader of a self-promoting vanity organization.] 05:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' as leader of a self-promoting vanity organization.] 05:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 22: Line 39:
* '''Delete''' more cruft from {{user|Jason Gastrich}} (check those contribs, people) ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC) * '''Delete''' more cruft from {{user|Jason Gastrich}} (check those contribs, people) ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' this agreeing with JzG. ] 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC) * '''Delete''' this agreeing with JzG. ] 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' as per nom. ] ] 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC) * '''Delete''' as per nom. ] ] 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - ] 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' - ] 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as per nom.--] 04:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' as per nom.--] 04:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 31: Line 48:
*'''Delete'''. Being an official for a non-accredited university isn't sufficient claim for notability. -] 21:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Being an official for a non-accredited university isn't sufficient claim for notability. -] 21:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' university-related topics are notable. ] 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep''' university-related topics are notable. ] 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Delete''' NN: I disagree that "university-related topics are notable" - I wouldn't write articles on every lecturer at the ], despite it being more widely accredited/recognised. --] | ] 16:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Merge''' if he's so incredibly notable, into the page for the university...there is not enough notability to warrant an entire article on this guy. ] 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Merge''' if he's so incredibly notable, into the page for the university...there is not enough notability to warrant an entire article on this guy. ] 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Line 38: Line 55:
*'''Keep''' Subject is not very notable, but the article can still be of use if kept NPOV. For me, limited notability doesn't not automatically warrant deletion. ··· ] · ] ··· 07:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Subject is not very notable, but the article can still be of use if kept NPOV. For me, limited notability doesn't not automatically warrant deletion. ··· ] · ] ··· 07:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak keep.''' Notability is limited, but it's there; this isn't some guy writing about Joe Average for the hell of it. Again, not liking the institution has little bearing on the rest of it. ] 10:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Weak keep.''' Notability is limited, but it's there; this isn't some guy writing about Joe Average for the hell of it. Again, not liking the institution has little bearing on the rest of it. ] 10:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Tired of this. Too much effort deleting and not enough creating or improving. --] 12:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *<s>'''Keep'''. Tired of this. Too much effort deleting and not enough creating or improving. --] 12:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**'''Abstain'''. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --] 16:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Unashamed keep''' Per reasons above. The guy has been working with this for 60 years! The guy's obviously notable and he needs an article. Too many are taking out more than they give. - 13:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ] <sup>]
*<s>'''Unashamed keep''' Per reasons above. The guy has been working with this for 60 years! The guy's obviously notable and he needs an article. Too many are taking out more than they give. - 13:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ] <sup>]</sup></s>
*'''Strong Keep''' This is a perfectly viable encyclopedia article on a public institution that could very well be the subject of someone's research in the future. In such an event, wikipedia would come in handy. That is what wikipedia is for. I haven't heard a single good argument to why this should be deleted. ] 15:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. Doing something non-notable for 60 years does not make it notable. ] 21:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''--] 21:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. Similar reasons to ] article. If the articles can be improved to establish some notability I will reconsider. ] 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

*'''Delete'''. I don't see anything notable about provosts. ] doesn't mention any by name. At any rate, if there are any notable provosts, I'd presume that they would come from accredited state universities, or at least accredited, high-ranking private schools. --] (]) 22:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' (weak) per great gavini.] 23:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''weak keep''' baceuse it is part of an article series, but so short and quite uninformative, should be improven. ] 23:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
:* '''Delete'''] 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::Sincerely,

::Jason Gastrich


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


::http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
*'''Delete:''' per nom. ] 16:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
----
:: Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. ] 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


::: '''Comment:''' Itake, that is "meatpuppetry" at its finest. As for the complaints about the admin, we're right back to ]. I also received the same email, and frankly felt it was in bad faith--skirting the edges of honesty. Stow the complaints and cut the foul language. The article has been nominated: let the nomination take its course without raising personal issues. ] 01:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. Hey, inclusionists, doesn't your philosophy want to keep content, or is it all about the number of articles? Do you also want to keep waste? -] 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
:::: Meatpuppetry would be the user having all his friends register and then vote. ENLIGHTENING other wikipedian users about this problem is in no way meatpuppetry. The one who raised personal issues here was Cyde, accusing the author of using multies and cheating. That's bad, and it needs a counterreaction. There is nothing dishonest about that mail, not in one place does the author of the letter tell a lie or similar. He doesn't even tell, he doesn't even ENCOURAGE people to vote "Keep". Not meatpuppetry in any way, if you are going to continue accusing him of meatpuppetry you need to present a convincing argument for it. Otherwise it will only be a continuation of the lies and slander you people are already throwing the author. ] 01:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' same as above. --] 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
::Dude, are you serious? What, precisely, do you think(?) ''this'' means? "I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries." Come on, dude, wake up and smell the, as you so aptly put it, bullshit. ] 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
::: To Itake: "Insinuating" ... this guy is shopping for votes calling those who want to delete the pages as people with "bad faith." Using Christ as a tool to get votes. Targeting those of religion with religion for keep votes. ] 03:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' if not for the "diploma mill" for his other activities. --] 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' ] 03:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. --] 20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as this person does not meet ]. ] 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. I wouldn't like to be the closing admin. ] 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Abstain with preference to merge'''. The article is very small & the article's subject is very unnotable. Although I would probably choose fixing rather than deletion, I have no real concern if it's delted or kept. I have no opinion. Therefore, I abstain. '''Further Note''': I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... ] 04:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...
:The only reason so many Christian articles were nominated in a big batch like this is because they were all created by the same user in a short period of time, and on non-notable people (or at least not notable enough to need their own article, I do think that some should certainly be highlighted in the main article of the institution they are connected to). This seems to be done with the intention of promoting an institution that the user is affiliated with, and not because the subjects of the articles are actual notable enough to warrant a dedicated article. The fact that they are Christian is coincidence. I would get the same reaction if I suddenly decided to create a batch of articles for all the instructors who taught at the photography school I went to (granted, some of them are quite notable, but many are not notable enough to warrant a dedicated article). ] 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
::I know this, but not many people are going to take that it was a "coincidence". As I've said, this could unlock a misunderstood-holy-wiki-war!!!! Omigosh batman!!!!! ] 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Ugh...maybe I should take a break from my usual wikianderings and do a bunch of articles on my school and it's faculty and alumni just so many of those will also be voted for deletion, just so I can show that these deletions aren't religiously biased. The most ridiculous part is that the ones screaming religious bias are the ones creating religiously biased articles...it is no more wrong to want to delete an article because it is religious, than it is to want to create an unnecessary article for promotionally religious purposes - they are almost the same thing. Misplaced Pages is not the place to debate or try to prove which is the "one true religion", it is a place to describe all the different types of religion from a completely NPOV. ] 05:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. ] <small>]</small> 18:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


'''<span style="font-size:xx-large;">NOTE:</span>'''
The following votes were deleted by ] in . &nbsp;]]] 10:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


* '''Keep''' Per Itake ] 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Hey! When did I ever do that???? I don't care about this article ''that'' much to be doing that. - ] 11:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


In addition, considering that the majority of the missing votes were for "keep", I would have to be very stupid to delete them if I was of the same opinion. - 15:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC) ] <sup>]</sup>
*'''Keep''' I see little reason to delete this article. --] 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
----
*'''Strong Keep''' This is a perfectly viable encyclopedia article on a public institution that could very well be the subject of someone's research in the future. In such an event, wikipedia would come in handy. That is what wikipedia is for. I haven't heard a single good argument to why this should be deleted. ] 15:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete:''' per nom. ] 16:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. Hey, inclusionists, doesn't your philosophy want to keep content, or is it all about the number of articles? Do you also want to keep waste? -] 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' same as above. --] 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' Per Itake ] 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I see little reason to delete this article. --] 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Salva veritate! ] 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', per Colin Kimbrell. Sufficient notability for inclusion (as per ]) is not established within this article. ] 18:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' 60 years in a field is definately long enough to make you notable for wikipedia... but he doesnt have anything in there that makes him pass the WP:BIO guidelines... sorry. &nbsp;]]] 18:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Very Strong Delete.''' If people want to keep this article because he is a provost, I should point out ''EVERY DEPARTMENT in EVERY UNIVERSITY'' has a provost. So '''some schools have 70 people who are a provost.''' Thus, it does not make one notable by itself. This person has no notable qualities and does not meet Misplaced Pages criteria. ] 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Very Strong Delete''' - As per Arbutsoo. This guy is no more notable than the next, a provost? Come on! Just because he works at a university doesn't mean he's notable. I could reel off a crapload of people who lecture at my uni, and no, they're not notable. - ] 01:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. University presidents are generally notable; provosts are not. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 03:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. ] ] 03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - provost not notable, no cites given for further claims.--] 08:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak delete''' without any publications to his own name - there is insufficient assertion of notability for me --] ] 15:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>
*'''Keep''' Salva veritate! ] 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:53, 30 August 2022

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

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

James Combs

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Misplaced Pages. --Jason Gastrich 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. Sycthos 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  • Speedy keep. Editor has nominated 10 Christian biography entries for deletion, today. It's hard to assume good faith. Combs is very notable for his work on the Prophecy Study Bible, his television appearances, his work in the field of Bible prophecy, etc. --Jason Gastrich 05:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
comment resorting to personal attacks on the editor isn't helping your case. Mark K. Bilbo 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Number of deletion nominations are not an indicator of anything other than "good faith" simply because one person doesn't care to see his articles nominated. Subject is not "very notable" because he has a little-known Bible program and is not all that well known in the field of prophesy except within a small segment of Christendom. Not "very notable" because of one person's opinion. Notability is a result of concensus. - WarriorScribe 05:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well documented? There no citations in the body of the article. And Louisiana Baptist University is not well known by any stretch.
There have been no good reasons to delete Mike Randall. He's the president of a regionally accredited university, a pastor for 22 years, and a long-time editor of two publications. Please don't tell me that you are one of the ignorant ones still saying that his university is a diploma mill. --Jason Gastrich 05:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ATTENTION

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

Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Misplaced Pages, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Itake 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Itake, that is "meatpuppetry" at its finest. As for the complaints about the admin, we're right back to Argument by insinuation. I also received the same email, and frankly felt it was in bad faith--skirting the edges of honesty. Stow the complaints and cut the foul language. The article has been nominated: let the nomination take its course without raising personal issues. Justin Eiler 01:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Meatpuppetry would be the user having all his friends register and then vote. ENLIGHTENING other wikipedian users about this problem is in no way meatpuppetry. The one who raised personal issues here was Cyde, accusing the author of using multies and cheating. That's bad, and it needs a counterreaction. There is nothing dishonest about that mail, not in one place does the author of the letter tell a lie or similar. He doesn't even tell, he doesn't even ENCOURAGE people to vote "Keep". Not meatpuppetry in any way, if you are going to continue accusing him of meatpuppetry you need to present a convincing argument for it. Otherwise it will only be a continuation of the lies and slander you people are already throwing the author. Itake 01:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Dude, are you serious? What, precisely, do you think(?) this means? "I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries." Come on, dude, wake up and smell the, as you so aptly put it, bullshit. Jim62sch 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
To Itake: "Insinuating" ... this guy is shopping for votes calling those who want to delete the pages as people with "bad faith." Using Christ as a tool to get votes. Targeting those of religion with religion for keep votes. Arbustoo 03:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep if not for the "diploma mill" for his other activities. --Vizcarra 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Arbustoo 03:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Spondoolicks 20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as this person does not meet WP:BIO. Cyde Weys 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I wouldn't like to be the closing admin. Stifle 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain with preference to merge. The article is very small & the article's subject is very unnotable. Although I would probably choose fixing rather than deletion, I have no real concern if it's delted or kept. I have no opinion. Therefore, I abstain. Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...
The only reason so many Christian articles were nominated in a big batch like this is because they were all created by the same user in a short period of time, and on non-notable people (or at least not notable enough to need their own article, I do think that some should certainly be highlighted in the main article of the institution they are connected to). This seems to be done with the intention of promoting an institution that the user is affiliated with, and not because the subjects of the articles are actual notable enough to warrant a dedicated article. The fact that they are Christian is coincidence. I would get the same reaction if I suddenly decided to create a batch of articles for all the instructors who taught at the photography school I went to (granted, some of them are quite notable, but many are not notable enough to warrant a dedicated article). bcatt 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I know this, but not many people are going to take that it was a "coincidence". As I've said, this could unlock a misunderstood-holy-wiki-war!!!! Omigosh batman!!!!! Spawn Man 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Ugh...maybe I should take a break from my usual wikianderings and do a bunch of articles on my school and it's faculty and alumni just so many of those will also be voted for deletion, just so I can show that these deletions aren't religiously biased. The most ridiculous part is that the ones screaming religious bias are the ones creating religiously biased articles...it is no more wrong to want to delete an article because it is religious, than it is to want to create an unnecessary article for promotionally religious purposes - they are almost the same thing. Misplaced Pages is not the place to debate or try to prove which is the "one true religion", it is a place to describe all the different types of religion from a completely NPOV. bcatt 05:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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.