| Revision as of 17:57, 20 January 2006 editShanedidona (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers2,563 edits KEEP← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:06, 20 January 2006 edit undoLerner~enwiki (talk | contribs)401 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
| *'''Keep''' I see little reason to delete this article. --] 17:57, 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) | |||
Revision as of 18:06, 20 January 2006
James Combs
Minor figure "notable" mainly as the provost of a diploma mill. Delete. A.J.A. 05:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as leader of a self-promoting vanity organization.Blnguyen 05:29, 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)
- Keep. Notable enough. Logophile 07:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- You keep posting "notable enough." I'm curious: In what way? - WarriorScribe 12:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - what criterion for notability does this person satisfy? Being an editor of a magazine? Uh, no. --Pierremenard 11:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - is a nonentity. Mention on the LBU page is as much mention as he deserves. -Harvestdancer 17:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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. See List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people. --Q
- Delete more cruft from Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) (check those contribs, people) Just zis Guy, you know? /
AfD? 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this agreeing with JzG. Eusebeus 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Guettarda 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom.--nixie 04:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. This is Gastrichcruft. Stifle 17:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Article seems well documented, and the provost of a well known school should be in wikipedia (believe it or not, it is well known in some circles). What the hell did Gastrich do to a deletionist to get this kind of treatment? We should not be telling all our friends to go vote to delete articles. This faction stuff is hurting the wiki. If the article contains garbage, we should clean it up, but if the article is well cited, keep it. Wikipeida space is very cheap. That said, you might want to mention the school's controversy in this page to keep things NPOV. Brokenfrog 20:48, 19 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.
- Delete per Guy. BrokenFrog, this guy is not notable, and what Gastrich did was write a bunch of vanity cruft. KillerChihuahua 21:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Being an official for a non-accredited university isn't sufficient claim for notability. -Colin Kimbrell 21:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep university-related topics are notable. Cynical 21:49, 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. bcatt 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Devein 22:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per KillerChihuahua --kingboyk 23:40, 19 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. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 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. Rogue 9 10:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Tired of this. Too much effort deleting and not enough creating or improving. --StuffOfInterest 12:44, 20 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) The Great Gavini
- 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. Itake 15:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Justin Eiler 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? -Harvestdancer 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep same as above. --Yonghokim 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Per Itake Wynler 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I see little reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Salva veritate! Lerner 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)