Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/J. Otis Ledbetter: 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 00:56, 23 January 2006 editFormer user 20 (talk | contribs)2,136 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:37, 7 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(17 intermediate revisions by 12 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 No consensus to delete. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{afdnewbies}} {{afdnewbies}}
Line 7: Line 13:


*'''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. --] 00:56, 23 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. --] 00:56, 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. ]] 05:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


---- ----
Line 14: Line 21:
::There are no personal attacks in that sentence. The word "many" is also misleading: most were created by you or ]. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ::There are no personal attacks in that sentence. The word "many" is also misleading: most were created by you or ]. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
:::At least 5 out of the 11 alumni on the LBU page were not written by me. --] 10:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :::At least 5 out of the 11 alumni on the LBU page were not written by me. --] 10:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' Non of the books appear to be from well-known publishers or have significant Amazon ranks. ] ] 01:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC) * '''Delete''' Non of the books appear to be from well-known publishers or have significant Amazon ranks. ] ] 01:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep'''. Very notable author and minister. --] 01:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong keep'''. Very notable author and minister. --] 01:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as non-notable vanity gastrich-cruft from a holder of a fake pHd from a diploma mill.] 02:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' as non-notable vanity gastrich-cruft from a holder of a fake pHd from a diploma mill.] 02:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 34: Line 41:
*'''Keep''', Popular Minister.] 12:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''', Popular Minister.] 12:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as per JzG and Blngyuen --] 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' as per JzG and Blngyuen --] 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' For all the reasons above. Also because he's a real person, who has done many notable things (have any of ''you'' had books published?). It has an image, which is good. Where is this image going to slot in if this is deleted? This could well be a featured article someday. - 13:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ] <sup>] *'''Strong keep''' For all the reasons above. Also because he's a real person, who has done many notable things (have any of ''you'' had books published?). It has an image, which is good. Where is this image going to slot in if this is deleted? This could well be a featured article someday. - 13:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ] <sup>]</sup>
*'''Keep'''. He's a real person; enough said. ] 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. He's a real person; enough said. ] 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
**You're a real person; where is your article? --] | ] 14:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) **You're a real person; where is your article? --] | ] 14:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
**No, not enough said. Please review ] for criteria to decide whether someone living merits a wikipedia article. Note that "being a real person" is not there. --] 09:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC) **No, not enough said. Please review ] for criteria to decide whether someone living merits a wikipedia article. Note that "being a real person" is not there. --] 09:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Strong Keep'''. Religious media personality and author. I'm also shocked by the sarcasm displayed here. -- ] 13:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC) * '''Strong Keep'''. Religious media personality and author. I'm also shocked by the sarcasm displayed here. -- ] 13:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Non-notable religious figure. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:18, 20 January 2006. Sorry --] </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
*'''Delete'''. Non-notable religious figure.


*'''keep''' We can't delete people because books aren't that popular on amazon (this is just not relevant as a criteria) or the publishers aren't well known. bio can be verified and individual is arguably notable. ] 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''keep''' We can't delete people because books aren't that popular on amazon (this is just not relevant as a criteria) or the publishers aren't well known. bio can be verified and individual is arguably notable. ] 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 58: Line 65:
*'''Keep''' Keep I see no reason to delete this article. ] 18:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Keep I see no reason to delete this article. ] 18:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom ] 18:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per nom ] 18:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' guy just barely passes my notability bar, he's clearly published multiple books, he's been on television... just squeeks by imo. &nbsp;]]] 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' guy just barely passes my notability bar, he's clearly published multiple books, he's been on television... just squeeks by imo. &nbsp;]]] 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. As with (US) college professors, being a church pastor doesn't get you in '''or''' out. This guy appears to be one of the more notable ones, quoted for example by the NZ ] website (so some international coverage). Google hits are predominantly Christian sites, hey we don't discount articles on ]s just because they appear mainly on ] sites, do we? ] 20:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. As with (US) college professors, being a church pastor doesn't get you in '''or''' out. This guy appears to be one of the more notable ones, quoted for example by the NZ ] website (so some international coverage). Google hits are predominantly Christian sites, hey we don't discount articles on ]s just because they appear mainly on ] sites, do we? ] 20:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''--] 21:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep'''--] 21:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 70: Line 77:
* '''ATTENTION''' * '''ATTENTION'''
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/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. --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">]</font> 16:32, 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. --] 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"
---- ----
::Hello, ::Hello,
Line 102: Line 109:
---- ----
:: 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) :: 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)

:::Assuming that you are addressing those remarks to me, here is the "]". - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 10:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' as an author. --] 02:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' as an author. --] 02:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as per JzG. And note to closing administrator, please evaluate carefully for sockpuppets/meatpuppets. ] 02:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' as per JzG. And note to closing administrator, please evaluate carefully for sockpuppets/meatpuppets. ] 02:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 118: Line 128:
*'''Strong delete''' as POV-pushing Gastrichcruft. ] 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong delete''' as POV-pushing Gastrichcruft. ] 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. If he's writen stuff then he should at least have a little slice of wikipedia? I mean, Misplaced Pages is huge, everyone can have a share can't they? Everyone thinks that because he isn't in the news, that he shouldn't be included in wikipedia, the so called "sum of all human knowledge". But how do we know he isn't influencial? He effects hundreds with his words..... '''Further Note''': I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... ] 04:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor... *'''Keep'''. If he's writen stuff then he should at least have a little slice of wikipedia? I mean, Misplaced Pages is huge, everyone can have a share can't they? Everyone thinks that because he isn't in the news, that he shouldn't be included in wikipedia, the so called "sum of all human knowledge". But how do we know he isn't influencial? He effects hundreds with his words..... '''Further Note''': I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... ] 04:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...
::There are two reasons why your comment above is wrong. The first is, I ''am'' a Christian. Much as you might have been told that this is a vendetta against articles on Christians, that is the POV of one man - which brings me to my second point: Wiggins2 is a probable sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (and has been blocked as such). In my experience the number of genuinely notable people whose articles rely on padding like the number of grandchildren is very limited. I checked out the books, they have Amazon sales ranks in the hundreds of thousands or, in some cases millions, none of them are by major imprints. This is just another pastor, just like all the rest, I see nothing special about him at all. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


====Wiggins2==== ====Wiggins2====
Line 126: Line 137:
*'''Keep''' The individual clearly exists. ] 15:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' The individual clearly exists. ] 15:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
: And? ] 00:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC) : And? ] 00:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' not notable enough to merit inclusion.--] 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Very strong delete.''' I can't believe the author of the article is painting this as a Christian vs. anti-Christian to gain votes. That's disgusting. This person is unnotable not up with Misplaced Pages standards of notability to maintain an article. ] 00:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per above. ] <small>]</small> 18:54, 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>

Latest revision as of 04:37, 7 February 2023

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

J. Otis Ledbetter

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 00:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. Sycthos 05:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Comment: There is no need to pepper your nomination with personal attacks and sarcasm. Furthermore, I didn't create all of the LBU alumni entries. Many were created long before I even came to Misplaced Pages. --Jason Gastrich 05:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There are no personal attacks in that sentence. The word "many" is also misleading: most were created by you or a suspected sockpuppet. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
At least 5 out of the 11 alumni on the LBU page were not written by me. --Jason Gastrich 10:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. And I also don't see that he really claims to be an educator. The article says he has a Ph.D. in education but the claim is that he is an author and "pastor." It doesn't seem to depend on the Ph.D. for that. More importantly, I don't think it's our role to delete an article because we feel that his education is inferior for the position he claims to hold. Can't that be addressed by the article editors? Crunch 07:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep We can't delete people because books aren't that popular on amazon (this is just not relevant as a criteria) or the publishers aren't well known. bio can be verified and individual is arguably notable. Ginar 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is a perfectly viable encyclopedia article on a public figure that could very well be the subject of someone's research in the future. In such an event, wikipedia would come in handy. That is what wikipedia is for. I haven't heard a single good argument to why this should be deleted. Itake 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, his books aren't self-published from the looks of it, including one book published by the seminary press Multnomah. --badlydrawnjeff 14:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination --kingboyk 14:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean he's not notable, and the sarcasm in the nom comes across as POV; his books make him notable, as Google shows. Walkerma 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if the article in its current state is fairly accurate, then he's got enough to warrant inclusion. The issues about his quality of education can be addressed in an NPOV manner in the article. Peyna 15:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep this is a compact, well-written article with sources and links, and a man with enough books, whether one thinks it is notable or not. Gubbubu 22:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Actually all the ones I checked seem to be established users. Couldn't find a sockpuppet in the lot of 'em. --Spondoolicks 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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)
Assuming that you are addressing those remarks to me, here is the "some reason". - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 10:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see anything in the article that implies notability. He is a pastor...he appeared as a guest on some radio shows...so what? --Pierremenard 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He seems to meet the notable author criteria. His affiliation with Focus on the Family is also somewhat notable. Whether or not we agree with his religious stand or tactics should be irrelevant, as should his Ph.D. from an unaccredited university. I don't think we're evaluating this on the quality of his education, but rather on his publishing and preaching which appears to pass the test. Crunch 07:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think his publishing passes the test? He gets a measly 10k hits in google. I don't see any circulation numbers for the books, so I don't see how you can say that he passes the test. --Pierremenard
Based on his contributions to Focus on the Family which is a very notable organization, like them or not. Cumulativel, the circ figures of books may squeek by, but it's his affiliation with Focus on the Family that put me over the edge on this guy. Crunch 13:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it. Do you think every person employed by Focus on the Family is notable? --Pierremenard 21:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. suggest admin verify legitimacy of all votes. Dbchip 07:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: There are many ways to try to rig an AfD. Heh heh heh. Fortunately, they're all based on the assumption that the ungodly can outthink the admins. Heh heh heh. Contributors can make the admins job a lot easier by following the procedures and policies, and by not being drawn into irrelevant debates on AfD pages, and a (significant) little easier by doing some of the work (e.g. flagging suspect sock puppet votes with links to their contribution histories is something anyone can do, not just an admin). But don't stress too much. We're human, but we're not quite as stupid as some would wish. Heh heh... Andrewa 10:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don't know what's going on here exactly, and it sounds like a personal feud between two people started this whole thing, but the fact that this man is a published author of multiple books and has worked with Focus on the Family makes him at least somewhat notable. Someone's degree status can't be made into a criteria of notability, as was stated above. In any case, Misplaced Pages has all kinds of articles on fictional characters , Internet trends, etc. It would seem hypocritical to keep them and yet delete biographies of peole who couldn't prove their academic credentials valid. Evan Donovan 17:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is not a personal feud, and it's also not a vendetta against Christians, as some people would like to portray it. It is a conversation about what makes a person notable, and there is a serious issue about how, in such a highly polarized environment, to distinguish POV pushing and linkspam from honest, good-faith efforts to create encyclopedic articles. Vote-stacking, throwing around accusations of feuds and vendettas, and jibes about people's motives just serve to polarize things more. I think it's obvious that this many-headed hydra of an argument is not going to lead to an overall consensus here and now, but there's no reason to poison the well for future discussions. rodii 17:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. He's notable enough for me. By the way, this sort of POV pushing, especially e-mailing people to "rally to your cause", is unacceptable. The idea here is that people can make rational, non-POV decisions on whether this guy is notable enough or not. Rodii has absolutely the right idea. Grandmasterka 20:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as POV-pushing Gastrichcruft. Stifle 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If he's writen stuff then he should at least have a little slice of wikipedia? I mean, Misplaced Pages is huge, everyone can have a share can't they? Everyone thinks that because he isn't in the news, that he shouldn't be included in wikipedia, the so called "sum of all human knowledge". But how do we know he isn't influencial? He effects hundreds with his words..... Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...
There are two reasons why your comment above is wrong. The first is, I am a Christian. Much as you might have been told that this is a vendetta against articles on Christians, that is the POV of one man - which brings me to my second point: Wiggins2 is a probable sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (and has been blocked as such). In my experience the number of genuinely notable people whose articles rely on padding like the number of grandchildren is very limited. I checked out the books, they have Amazon sales ranks in the hundreds of thousands or, in some cases millions, none of them are by major imprints. This is just another pastor, just like all the rest, I see nothing special about him at all. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiggins2

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

  • Strong Delete. Unnotable being promoted for people to buy books. Does not meet Wiki standards of notability, no sources, and as demonstrated with the vote stuffing, this is solely an article to promote a certain religious and a certain unaccredited diploma mill (Louisiana Baptist University). The vote stuffing is very serious and something should be done to protect this type of action. The stuffing throws the whole communal mechanism at Misplaced Pages into serious jeopardy. Arbustoo 02:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
And? Arbustoo 00:26, 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.