Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 23:25, 30 April 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. The final tally was 42 delete, 18 keep, 11 merge. I discounted 8 votes (7K/1D) for being either from newbies or not having real reasons (e.g., "it exists" -- my big toe exists but it doesn't deserve an article). Even if I had kept them, we'd have 43–25, or 63% delete. Also note that most merge votes were "merge or delete." This really should be a merge IMHO, which should satisfy the inclusionist bloc who don't want to see the content deleted. Really, we're talking 44Kb for a list of people? The vote stacking also really disturbs me. I noticed that a number of the people in the inclusionist bloc all voted on the same AfD discussions, all right in a row, which strongly implies they were here only because of their wikiphilosophy (still, I didn't discount their votes). howcheng {chat} 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Louisiana Baptist University people

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

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

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

See: II - Accrediatation discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See: III - User has nine edits

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

See: IV - Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See: V - Paranoia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through 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)

See: XII - Email

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

See: XIII - Bias?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See: XIV - Wiggins 2

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

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

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

See: XV - Mote, beam, etc

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

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

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

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

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