Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:18, 21 January 2006

Mike Randall

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is deleted. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Misplaced Pages editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Misplaced Pages are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made purely upon weight of numbers.

The school he's president of might be notable, but he isn't. Delete. A.J.A. 05:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. - WarriorScribe 06:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. hius qualifications are from a diploma mill. self-styled religious leader.Blnguyen 06:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• There seems to be some sort of purging of certain religious figures going on, and it is becoming difficult to stick to the assumption of good faith. This one is an Easy Keep, via Misplaced Pages:Notability. "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." This subject meets the qualification with two of the publications he edited/wrote for.

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

• There's no reason to doubt good faith if the complete information is not in the article and a deletion nomination is made based on what is there, as well as the record of the article writer for posting a number of articles about people of questionable notability. If there is information available that makes the person notable according to WP:BIO, perhaps passing on laziness (or an attempt to inflate contribution numbers by posting many small, largely substanceless articles instead of a few, good, informative articles) might better serve the purpose of Misplaced Pages. What do you think? - WarriorScribe 07:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think the first priority is not to delete articles that don't seem up to snuff, but to make them better. Perhaps the accusation of laziness applies somewhere in this mess. Four seconds on google gets you the circulation numbers for the publications the subject edited. That's all it takes to know this is a keep. Not to mention his position at his institution. - Jaysus Chris 07:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I can see your point, but I think that deleting articles that are not up to snuff should be some level of priority, if not the first. I would add that it's not up to the reader to do the research to see if the party or institution is notable--something in the article should indicate that, even if it's a short article that the writer intends to come back to, later. For example, I intend to start adding articles on some writers of history and some scientists that I think should get some coverage, but if I were to do that and only add as a "stub," I think I'd make it a point to get the notability in there--something other than "is a professor and author." Neither of those things is good enough and it would serve me right if someone came along an deleted it because it contained insufficient information. We all have time issues and we can all understand that one might want to start an article and add to it, later. That's cool. Get whatever makes that person or institution notable in there, first. Then, if you have to come back to it later (maybe even much later), it'll probably still be there, even if still a "stub." Sorry...I have no sympathy for lazy writers. I'm a tad "old school" that way. - WarriorScribe 07:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's true that the reader shouldn't have to hunt for notability. But when, through the magic of Misplaced Pages, we become the editors, we have an obligation to make sure we're not deleting useful information. I guess that's what this process is all about, but I think the default position should be "let's see if this is appropriate" versus "AFD anything I'm not familiar with that doesn't make a bold claim for notability". My opinion. - Jaysus Chris 08:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, there's a difference, too--a fine one, I'll grant--between what some might view as "notable" (Wiki's standards are a tad over-encompassing, after all) and what is "useful." These kinds of articles are not generally useful. They read like bios from corporate literature, and too often don't qualify as encyclopedic. However, I certainly think that your opinion is well-considered and valid, even if I'm not convinced that anyone is really taking the latter "default position." - WarriorScribe 12:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Some think that deleting articles risks losing valuable information, just because that valuable information or proof of notability isn't there yet. It doesn't. The article can be recreated with those things without being speedily deleted, and articles have been recreated in this way. See Godcasting - it was initially (rightly) deleted, then eventually recreated with the necessary information it lacked the first time, reAfDed and kept. Admittedly there was a lot of unnecessary drama on the way and I could probably pick a better example, but then it was a Christian-related subject, so so much for the evil atheistic cabal. --Malthusian (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject is notable enough. Logophile 07:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, anyone can write religious magazines, every school has a leader, and apparently pretty much anyone can get a diploma from LBU. To meet WP:BIO we need evidence that people outside himself and his flock have paid him or his magazines any attention. Google searches on him and his magazines suggest that they haven't. --Malthusian (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. California12 02:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - there is nothing in the article that suggests notability. If he falls under some criterion from WP:BIO - for example, having written for a magazine with a circulation of at least 5,000 - then evidence for this needs to be clearly documented here. If this will be the case, I will change my vote. Until then, we've got a person who does not sound like he has done anything significant enough to be considered notable. --Pierremenard 11:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pierremenard. I detest nn-bio's. Zunaid 14:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - As far as I can tell he's a pastor (hundreds of thousands of those) and he's the president of a diploma mill (don't want to guess how many presidents of diploma mills there have ever been). Nothing about any of this says "notable". Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

President of a diploma mill? It is these sorts of ignorant accusations that make me upset. He's the president of a regionally accredited university. If you would have bothered to look at Baptist_Bible_College_-_Springfield,_Missouri, you would have known this. Will you consider changing your vote, now? --Jason Gastrich 21:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning and the Louisiana Baptist University. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A guy who is the head of a university, but has no proper degrees from a proper university, would suggest that the "university" he leads is some tin-pot crackpot self-declared intellectual hotbed. Has this guy ever published any of his work in a respected research journal?? Blnguyen 23:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable enough on his own. He deserves mention, maybe, on the pages of the colleges that allegedly make him notable, but he's not notable enough on his own. -Harvestdancer 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete president of a college with all of 700 students? I don't see the notablitiy here. Mark K. Bilbo 19:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Obviously notable president of a regionally accredited university. --Jason Gastrich 21:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Watch Out Potential branchstacking : .Blnguyen 02:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, I stumbled into this mess of my own accord, and was later encouraged to vote in other AFDs by the original contributor (The last link above). There were a handful of easy keeps among the indiscriminant AFD noms by User:A.J.A. and I wanted to point that out. I'm not getting in to the marginal ones. All my votes/comments are legit and as disinterested as I can be. - Jaysus Chris 08:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete like the rest Gastrich has wasted yet more irreplaceable minutes of our lives. Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you're complaining about, Juzzy. You're at least Christian and have eternal life, the rest of us have to mentally divide the minutes we spend trying to get rid of vanity articles into our mere 70-80 years ;-) --Malthusian (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Listen, mate, I'm trying to avoid purgatory, not experience it here! - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gastrich, where notable is replaced with the more appropriate non-notable. Eusebeus 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above, with the additional comment that this person is less notable than the average British vice-chancellor, many of whom do not have articles. --kingboyk 00:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per discussion above, seems to be quite non-notable. David D. (Talk) 16:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (Strong) President of a very well known (albeit insanely conservative) school. He also is a published author. I think we can work on the article, but no reason to delete. Brokenfrog 20:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Published by whom? Read by whom? Nothing's stopping YOU from making it better and relevant.

• Strong Keep university-related topics are notable. Cynical 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Edits two magazines with circulation > 5,000 and thus satisfies WP:BIO. The LBU stuff doesn't reflect well on him as a person, but doesn't really matter one way or the other for bio standards. -Colin Kimbrell 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I read the article very carefully and did not see a single reference to anything notable that he did. He went to this school and that (I went to schools too), he's had this job and that (I've had jobs too)...but no mention of anything he did that made some kind of difference, or gained him noteriety. So he's the president of an unaccredited institution...what did he do that makes him interesting to the public at large? bcatt 22:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Edits two magazines with circulation greater than 5,000, which certainly seems to satisfy the spirit of WP:BIO. -Colin Kimbrell 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Is I said before, he's the president of a regionally accredited university; which is the highest accreditation that the government can provide in the United States. Will this make you change your vote? --Jason Gastrich 02:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Devein 22:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per User:Jaysuschris opinions. He makes a good argument, IMO.--Azathar 23:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What argument is that?

• Keep, per User:Jaysuschris. This article seems to satisfy WP:BIO. Banes 07:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Colin Kimbrell ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to meet WP:BIO. Alphax  07:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jaysus Chris. Rogue 9 10:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I would like to think that semi-notable atheist figures would be given the same respect. --StuffOfInterest 12:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per WP:BIO. Kerobaros 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above. User:Jaysuschris has made a great argument, which should be taken into account. Randall's obviously someone worthy to be included in an encyclopedia. He has experience and looks pretty damn intelligent. References and everything. What more do you want? - The Great Gavini
• Strong Keep Itake 15:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable. Justin Eiler 16:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep NPOV, published with large readership, President of a University.Wynler 17:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep same as above. --Yonghokim 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see little reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keep. I see little reason to delete this article. Salva veritate! Lerner 18:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I dont think this guy is notable of his own right, but his work related to the school warrents him inclusion there.  ALKIVAR™ 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons expressed by Colin Kimbrell. Failing that, merge and redirect to Baptist Bible College - Springfield, Missouri. Hall Monitor 18:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --Hayson 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. His only claim to fame seems to be that he's president of an (accredited) institution once attended by Jerry Falwell. Even if we merge and redirect to Baptist Bible College - Springfield, Missouri, what then happens when he leaves? Andrewa 21:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Seems notable enough.the1physicist 22:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Baptist Bible College - Springfield, Missouri. Being the president of that school is the only thing for which he's notable that I've seen in the article, and to address Andrewa's concern, if he becomes notable for something else, then recreate the article and make sure to mention that. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: My concern wasn't what happens if and when he becomes notable in his own right, I think that's easy. The problem is with a merge and redirect. Even if as current president he deserves a mention on the article on the college, he probably won't merit one as a past president (unlike Neal Weaver for example who it seems likely will). So, if we merge and redirect, we'll later be deleting the redirect. IMO, if he's notable now, it means we're expecting him to remain notable after he leaves the college. Any clearer? No change of vote. Andrewa 23:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Weak Merge. Soon we'll be seeing bios on every almuna and alumnus.
• weak keep: compact, but short, I think not only scientists, but teachers and priests too can be notable. Gubbubu
• Delete Jim62sch 02:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• ATTENTION Jason Gastrich wrote these series of 12 articles attends the school in question and has been known to used sock puppets, plus...

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. Where do you get the facts to backup the claim that User Jason Gastrich used multiple accounts to further his articles? Now this is going out hand. When you people turn to personal attacks and blatant lies and slandering, it gets personal. Itake 01:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich is saying those who want to delete the articles have "bad faith." If that's not pressuring for ballot stuffing nothing is. No insinuation. Facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Jason_Gastrich Arbustoo 03:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you'll get used to it. Opposing any opinion of Gastrich is "bad faith," "harrassment," "persecution of Christians" and, anyway, you do it because you're an atheist who "hates Jesus." Why, I'm downright scum. It's a cross I bear. Mark K. Bilbo 03:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable enough --Vizcarra 02:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Arbustoo 03:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)