Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:28, 29 December 2014

26 December 2014

Jayden Jaymes

Jayden Jaymes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was NO consensus to delete this article, in fact if you look at the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jayden Jaymes the majority voted to KEEP. A couples of persons (a minority) voted to delete, and an other unilaterally decided to ignore all arguments to keep the article, and unilaterally decided the article should be deleted. This is NOT the way how this works. The result should have been no consensus or keep. I will thus appeal to restore the contended article. -- fdewaele, 26 December 2014, 23:59 CET.

• Endorse I was also considering closing this and also decided for "delete", but by that time, it had already been closed. Correct reading of discussion. fdewaele is reminded that AfD is not a vote. --Randykitty (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn Well known individual. I say keep them on wikipedia. Winner of multiple awards. GNG and Pornbio notable.
  

PornBio states
Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration. Yes AVN fan award, Best Group Scene Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. Undetermined Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Yes CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC) (note that CrazyAces amended his comment after my post below. Spartaz 00:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• • CrazyAces489 if you want people to take anything you say here even the slightest bit seriously you are going to have to use a policy based argument instead of, frankly, worthless assertions. Spartaz 22:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• You are having a laugh aren't you? You just quoted PORN bio excludes scene awards and then try to claim a scene award to say she passes it, the answer to 2 is no not undertermined and I don't you can seriously be suggesting that a youtube video is the same as being featured multiple times in mainstream media. This really is the most rediculous argument I have ever seen employed. Are you sure this isnt some kind of idiotic performance art? Spartaz 00:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• sorry for trying I guess I will stick to martial arts articles. Sadly many people here don't like my articles in that genre either. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - Although I voted Keep -lets be honest - Other than Rebeccas !vote - No one explained how the hell she passed GNG + PORNBIO, We all may as well have put "Keep - Because she's notable" .... Truth be told we all fucked it up spectacularly - I get the noms pissed off but it was all our own doing really!. –Davey2010 00:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Restore article: Jaymes passes WP:PORNBIO criteria #1; she won an AVN Award (which is well-known and significant) for Best Body - Fan Award (not a scene-related or ensemble category). The AfD only had two delete votes and only one of those argued that consensus determining this award is not well-known/significant existed, but did not cite a single discussion to prove it. As someone who has participated in or at least read nearly every porn biography AfD these last two years, I have never seen the purported consensus. The other delete voter claimed she failed PORNBIO criteria #3; "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", which Jaymes also passes (was the subject of a True Life episode; entire episode, not just a "brief appearance", appeared on LA Weekly, several appearances in mainstream films & music videos, etc.). Also, the second delete voter didn't even acknowledge PORNBIO criteria #1 or her award. Both delete votes are flawed. Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - not only is AFD not a vote, DRV isn't AFD: Round II. If you didn't make your case convincingly at AFD, DRV isn't designed to give you another bite at the cherry. When that's the case, coming here and arguing the closer got in wrong isn't reasonable. You'd be better off accepting you got it wrong and asking for permission to recreate the article. St★lwart 09:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment This is not a problem of not making the case convincingly. We argue that we did. The problem is that the (ignored) majority clearly agued that she passes PORNBIO, even giving a reason as she won multiple AVN awards, amongst which an individual AVN award, and the closer just ignores all that and substituted his/her personal opinion for the majority view and closed the article, while there clearly is no consenus for that. How can a majority argue convincingly when the opposite side won't see any reason or accept contrary arguments? -- fdewaele, 27 December 2014, 10:25

The suggestion that the fan award was sufficient was comprehensively argued against. Yes it is vs. no it isn't and here's why (with little rebuttal). You might argue that you did but in ignoring the main arguments of the "delete side", you really didn't. St★lwart 11:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not true as it was argued against convincingly by Rebecca in the AfD. There is no consensus to exclude body awards or AVN's fan awards from PORNBIO. Plus the award in question is notable enough to be mentioned in a newspaper. This remains a case where the few impose their view/personal opinion on the majority which disagrees with it. Turning the tables I can say thus as easily say that the minority didn't convincingly argue against the majority view. -- fdewaele, 27 December 2014, 12:52

The closer wasn't convinced, nor is anyone here beyond you and the person you say argued convincingly (and someone who doesn't seem to understand the purpose of DRV). Even someone who opined in favour of keeping the article has endorsed the deletion decision here (an AFD regular, no less). That's usually a pretty good indication that the closer got it right. Saying it multiple times doesn't make it more true; nobody else seems to agree that the closer was at fault. A number of people, on the other hand, have agreed that AFD participants were. St★lwart 23:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There was clearly no consensus generated by the AFD. Arguments Pro and Contra were made and a majority well argued pro, a minority contra. If you say the pro arguments weren't convincing, the contra arguments certainly weren't either. In the past when a situation exact like this in an AFD arose, the AFD was closed and filed under “No Consensus”. See for instance Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carmella Bing (2nd nomination) or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jessica Jaymes, which to be honest were far weaker articles than this one. The closer should have done the same for the contended article instead of deleting it. -- fdewaele, 28 December 2014, 23:40

That kind of misses the point. The closer (with no prior knowledge and with only the comments in the AFD to guide him) came to the opinion that there was consensus among participants that the article should be deleted. You can disagree with that. Personally, I would have closed it the same way. You can disagree with that too. On that basis, my opinion is that the closer's opinion was within the bounds of reasonableness and discretion. You can (you see where I'm going here) disagree with that too. We appoint administrators do do exactly this kind of work - judge consensus based on arguments and opinions and policy. You can disagree with their assessment, but that doesn't make their assessment wrong. I should point out that the close also doesn't make your assessment wrong. It's just that in this instance, your assessment was different to that of the community and of the closing administrator. As I said originally, you may be better waiting and simply asking for permission (here) to recreate it later on. Borderline cases are likely to suffer other issues anyway. Best we just be merciful, let them go and work on some cool necromancy later on (I'm getting a bizarre zombie stripper vibe now). St★lwart 10:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion discussions are not closed according to the majority vote. The closer didn't "unilaterally decide to ignore all arguments to keep the article, and unilaterally decided the article should be deleted". They decided that the arguments in favour of deletion were stronger than those for keeping the article, and closed the debate accordingly. This is what the closer is supposed to do (WP:DGFA) and it looks like a reasonable judgement in this situation. Hut 8.5 17:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: How were the delete votes more convincing than the keep votes? There were two delete votes and only one of those acknowledged her award win. This delete voter claimed that consensus excluding this award from PORNBIO exists, but did not provide a single discussion to prove it, all the closing admin had was his word and no proof. Here are all the AVN fan award recipients of non scene-related/ensemble categories (the only categories excluded from PORNBIO):
• 2011: Jenna Haze & Alektra Blue
• 2012: Riley Steele
• 2013: Riley Steele & April O'Neil (actress)
• 2014: Jayden Jaymes, Kagney Linn Karter, Riley Steele, James Deen, LittleRedBunny, Alexis Texas, Lisa Ann, Christy Mack, & Lexi Belle

All of them have WP articles except for LittleRedBunny and now Jayden Jaymes. An article for LittleRedBunny/Little Red Bunny has never been created and there is no AfD for her, so where could this purported discussion & consensus to exclude this award possibly exist? It doesn't exist. This delete voter also claimed that the award was created last year, which is not true. I agree that AfD is not a majority/minority vote, its about how convincing the votes are, but how could the closing admin consider a dishonest delete vote convincing? Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The comment you've linked to doesn't claim there is any specific consensus that this award doesn't meet PORNBIO. It said, much more generally, that "body/body parts awards have been regularly rejected in past discussions, whatever the awarding organization". Pointing to a lack of AfD discussions on recipients of this particular award does nothing to refute that. Pointing to the existence of other articles isn't considered a very good argument, here or at AfD, and the articles you linked to may well have other evidence for notability beyond this award. It is not true that PORNBIO only excludes scene-related and ensemble categories, it also excludes any award which isn't deemed "well-known and significant" (which I think was the argument here). Even if the comment is wrong about the year that's hardly reason to invalidate the close. Hut 8.5 11:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you claim that we don't disprove his stance, on the other hand he (or you) clearly doesn't have to prove your points. Merely claiming something to be such or so, doesn't make it true either. The fact is PORNBIO states the following:

1.Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.

2.Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.

3.Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

Nowhere does PORNBIO state that body awards are to be excluded. That is something which it clearly doesn't say, but is personal opinion or taste. In any case there is no consensus about excluding this category as well, so in that case the article should get the benefit of the doubt. -- fdewaele, 28 December 2014, 12:53.

It's not that Rebecca1990's comment above "doesn't disprove his stance", it's that it completely misses the point. It takes a phrase from a comment left in the AfD, mischaracterises it, shows that there can't be any evidence for the mischaracterised version and concludes that the comment must have been left in bad faith. I admit I don't have enough experience in this area to say whether the original claim of consensus is right, but what you've quoted above doesn't show that there isn't one or that the idea isn't compatible with our notability guidelines. And before people get hung up on this point I should also say that this wasn't even the only argument offered against the award at AfD. Hut 8.5 14:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right, HW's argument was that "body/body parts awards have been regularly rejected in past discussions, whatever the awarding organization". Here's the thing: while there may be several award ceremonies with body/body part categories in the porn industry, only two of those pass the well-known/significant criteria in PORNBIO; AVN and the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award. Every recipient of the FAME award's body/body part categories (they're listed in the FAME awards WP article) also has a WP article. So, where are the discussions resulting in consensus to exclude body/body part awards from PORNBIO? Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Again the fact that we have an article on everyone who's won, say, "Favorite Ass" doesn't mean that all these people are notable or that they are notable because they won the award. They may have other accomplishments beyond having the "Favorite Ass". I don't think your claim that "well-known and significant" is equivalent to "AVN or FAME" is accurate. Hut 8.5 10:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't you see the problem here? The closing admin deleted this article over a dishonest delete vote. One user's personal opinion is not consensus. I have provided evidence to prove that the purported consensus does not exist and the delete voter (who I assume is aware that this DRV is taking place since I can see him participating in Jerome Mackey's DRV below) has not even tried to refute it. He also didn't respond to my comment on his delete vote in the AfD. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse lets be honest here. Rebecca votes keep with spurious grounds on almost every porn afd they participate in irrespective of where the reality of PORNBIO sits for that individual. That gives them zero credibility when it comes to arguing to keep something.nwhat we had was another inadequately sourced BLP of a porn performer and we have a clear meta consensus that we should not keep inadequately sourced blps. This was the corect outcome. Spartaz 15:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Please can the nominator explain why they mad no effort to discuss the close with the closing admin prior to raising the DRV and why they didn't have even the most basic courtesy to notify them. An oversight I have now rectified. *sniff* not very classy. Spartaz 21:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

To be honest: why should I? It's not a requirement, and in his closing statement the closer referred to this medium. Plus I left a message on the AFD's talk page. Plus Randykitty explicitly referred to take this to DRV. Besides, it's not as if the closer had the courtesy to announce his intent to close to us before he did it. We were faced with a fait accompli. The closer never participated in the debate and just closed it. And due to the way his closing statement was formulated, it's clear he wasn't interested in (any) debate. How can you debate with a man who just won't see reason? Who blindly parrots the deleters viewpoints and dismisses offhandedly any contrary view, no matter how well founded. The people who want to keep this article have almost been accused of "fabricating" arguments. I can say the same of the deleters and closers: they see a general rule, where clearly there isn't. They interpret PORNBIO in a way for which there certainly is no consensus but don't give any contrary proof. They say, the PORNBIO criteria are not met, while clearly they are. How do you convince a person who hasn't got any interest to be convinced or to have an open mind?-- fdewaele, 28 December 2014, 23:16.

For someone with almost 15,000 edits behind their belt, you obviously have a very limited understanding of AfD and DRV. A closer is not supposed to have participated in the debate, that would make them involved and prohibit them from closing. And an AfD can be closed at any moment after the required 7 days have passed. And I "referred" you in taking this to AfD after you had vandalized the AfD with a personal attack against the closer. Be glad you didn't get blocked for that one! --Randykitty (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Restore article: per argument above. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 22:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want your opinion to count for anything, you'll have to familiarize yourself with what DRV is about and do a bit better than "per argument above". DRV is even less of a !vote than AfD... --Randykitty (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the arguments above, so, what to do? copy arguments by other users and paste to my post? Sorry but no. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So you agree with my argument that this article failed both PORNBIO and the GNG and should be deleted as an inadequately sourced BLP? Spartaz 00:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That's disingenuous. Of course he doesn't, otherwise he would have voted endorse in stead of restore. But I can appreciate that when one agrees with comments or arguments made, you endorse those comments in stead of copy-pasting them. What's the surplus value of that? -- fdewaele, 29 December 2014, 9:46

• Comment by closing admin. I can see why this was brought here: because of the number of keep votes - indeed, at one point it was closed as keep because there were no delete voices other than the nominator. But that close was felt to be a little too early, and was self-reverted on request. As sometimes does happen in an AfD discussion, things turned (which is why we do stress that a full seven days are given), and some pertinent policy based arguments were given as to why the article didn't meet inclusion criteria. On examining the arguments, and checking the relevant inclusion criteria and the quality of the sources (as these were raised in the discussion), I found the delete arguments convincing. I explained this in a closing statement as I felt that would be helpful given the circumstances. The main argument for keeping the article was that the subject of the article had won a well-known and significant industry award: AVN Best Body. The award is sourced to the AVN website rather than an independent source - a search on the internet threw up only a few mentions on porn blogs - I couldn't see mentions in regular mainstream independent reliable sources; I checked our own article on the AVN Awards, but the award is not mentioned there either. I saw no sign that this award is either well known or significant. Without evidence in the article that the award was significant, without evidence in the article that the subject was notable, without sufficient independent reliable sources mentioning the subject in sufficient depth, I concluded that the keep arguments did not sufficiently stand up to scrutiny, and my own researches into the matter supported that conclusion. SilkTork 23:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand that the burden of proof lies on the keep side and not on the delete side, and I did provide mainstream sources as evidence of notability for this award in the AfD; Las Vegas Sun & LA Weekly. What did the delete voter provide? An unfounded claim that the award has consensus on WP to exclude it from PORNBIO. Where are these discussions? They don't exist, if they did he would have provided a link to them since he has a habit of doing that. And I've done my research (above) on WP and have found that every single recipient of body/body part fan voted awards from AVN and FAME (both well-known/significant ceremonies) has a WP article. Not a single one of them has had their article deleted and the purported discussion cannot possibly exist. Why are you all still giving this delete voter any credibility. There were several false statements made in his vote: 1. lied about the year the award was created, 2. lied about the existence of a discussion that obviously does not exist, & 3. claimed that Jaymes only had a "brief appearance" in the True Life episode, which is also not true. Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Appearing in is not featured according to the dictionary it means have as an important actor or participant. We exclude our own views as OR, so where are the sources to show she was an important actor or participant? Are there any reviews of her performance? The number of times the pro-porn fan club try to twist even the most fleeting appearance into featured beyond any reasonable interpretation suggests I need to go backto PORNBIO and tighten the wording. Spartaz 09:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Jaymes's appearance on the True Life episode was not minor or brief. The episode is titled "I'm Addicted to Porn" and it features the stories of three people: porn star Jayden Jaymes, and two men who are struggling with an addiction to porn. Being the topic of 1/3 of that entire episode qualifies as "featured" and True Life qualifies as "notable mainstream media". She was also featured in an LA Weekly article, which is also "notable mainstream media". The word "multiple" means "consisting of, including, or involving more than one", so she meets the "multiple times" requirement of PORNBIO's criteria #3. Regarding her True Life appearance, you asked if there were "any reviews of her performance", and indeed there are. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this site reliable? The review of her performance is barely 4-5 lines and the site appears to include user submitted material and be connected to gawker in some way. This wouldn't be my killer blow to overturn a discussion and I'm not really persuaded that this review is enough to say that she has been featured multiple times in mainstream media. Spartaz 16:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the third time I'm providing the link for the True Life episode. I get the feeling that no one here has watched it or even clicked on the link. The episode is 41:42 minutes long. This episode's format is to jump from one story to another and come back to it later instead of just showing the whole story continuously. Jayden Jaymes's introduction is from 00:55-01:33 and her appearances are at 02:40-06:40, 14:20-16:50, 22:40-24-50, 31:15-33:00, and 35:20-37:50. Jaymes's story lasted a total of 13:33 minutes, which is 1/3 of the episode. That's a prominent appearance, not a minor one. And the Jezebel (website) article wasn't user submitted, it was written by Tracie Egan Morrissey, a journalist who recently began working for Vice (magazine) (). Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. AfD is not a majority vote. Notability was borderline at best. I accept that the closing admin decided in favor of deletion from policy-based arguments. Several of the keep votes were unsupported assertions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

So in your opinion it's right for the delete side to make - what you call - "unsupported assertions"? Because that's what they were... As stated multiple times above, not a single proof for their assertions was ever given, and those assertions have been debunked, both here and in the AFD. Sorry but that seems a bit of a double standard to me... -- fdewaele, 29 December 2014, 10:00

As any student of philosophy knows, it is impossible to prove a negative. I cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. Similarly, we cannot prove absence of notability. The onus therefore is on those arguing in favor of notability to prove that with reliable sources. If there were sources saying "Mr Doe is not notable", that would actually be proof of notability :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have opened a discussion of the meaning of PORNBIO#3 to see if we can clarify the meaning of this section. All invited to add their views as its something that seems relevent to this discussion. Here. Spartaz 16:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It might be equally relevant to have a renewed discussion of just what awards count for notability. Awards can be a more easily discerned criterion than "appearances in mainstream media", where the significance in each will often be to some extenta matter of judgment. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Jerome Mackey

Jerome Mackey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Delete per arguments provided by "delete" !votes and per WP:TNT CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe a consensus was reached. It was barely a majority vote of 50/50. I would like this reviewed. Worse case scenario I would like the article userfied so that I can utilize any updates over the past few months. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse as closer. I am not going to restore this even for this DRV (but will not object if another admin judges differently), given the highly promotional nature of this article. If I had seen it before it was taken to AfD, I would have speedily deleted it as G11. As for the AfD, the delete !votes were well argued and policy-based, the keep !votes much less (and some literally stated "I like this article"). WP:NOTAVOTE. See also the related discussion on my talk. --Randykitty (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment What do you consider to be promotional? The schools are closed, and the only thing that he does now is apparently sell his books. He was the first individual to have a franchise martial arts schools in America. His schools qualified for inclusion based on WP:MANOTE. There is the problem of separating him from his schools because his schools had the same name as him. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Probably do need a temporary undelete. Can you source the franchise claim? And can we get a list of what you would consider to be reliable sources for this article? Hobit (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment Franchise claims Jan 1974 Black Belt Magazine "Jerome Mackey is to self-defense what Colonel Sanders is to fried Chiecken," says PEter Berchley in his New York Sunday News Article, "Maestro of the Martial Arts?" Jerome Mackey was a judo instructor and was one of the first to franchise karate schools in the U.S. Jerome Mackey's Judo Inc is the General Motors of its field - the largest, most elaborate, most comfortable and most successful dojo in New York. - New York Magazine Oct 1971 Jerome Mackey introduces franchise martial arts to the United States. The Mackey clubs remained influential in New York and New Jersey into the 1970s, when a stock swindle forced their closure. A Chronological History of the Martial Arts and Combative Sports 1940-now

I don't have the total list as the article was deleted, but Sports Illustrated, Black Belt Magazine, NY Times, Look Magazine, etc. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Given the nom's abominable previous record with userfied articles - cut and pasting them into mainspace under different titles to avoid scrutiny and to make it appear as if he was the sole author, after no improvement to the previously deleted article except for formatting changes - I'm going to decline temp undeletion too. I won't object to another admin doing so either, but please think long and hard about it first. —Cryptic 07:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I am open to being helped with userfied articles. Some of my userfied articles have made a transition into mainspace such as https://en.wikipedia.org/Taraje_Williams-Murray Geo Omori https://en.wikipedia.org/User:CrazyAces489/GeoOmori . If someone were to help me with doing some of the work or at least show me how to move them properly, I would welcome it. I like most everyone here work and don't have the time to fully dedicate to wikipedia. I don't want to make it seem like I am the sole author. Misplaced Pages is a community and we all work together. I was given the advice on a Ron Duncan article to move to mainspace and create an AFD. Also what is the process for deleting a userfied article? Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. Given the abominable nature of the text, I don't believe the closer's decision to delete rather than to gut-and-stub was outside the range of routine discussion. It's also curious that neither the current userspace version of the article nor the Google cache version mentions the matters discussed in this or this , greatly buttressing the closer's conclusion that the deleted version was constructed as a promotional piece rather than an appropriately balanced BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hullaballoo, There isn't a major mention of this in the article, but I am in no way opposed to talking about the court cases. The schools were closed due to a stock fraud as noted in the user version. Also the Children of the Lost Sheep was a social program that wanted to end homelessness. I was focused on the martial arts aspects of the schools rather than the lost sheep. I have no issue putting it in the article. CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hullaboo, OMG, I am reading this and the Temple is far more than I thought it was. Thank you. I didn't know it appears to be a cult. CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I added some information concerning the 2 of 3 lawsuits that he was a party to. The Temple of the Lost Sheep, the mail fraud but not much more on the stock fraud. . I am requesting someone to userfy the deleted article so that I can merge information and make the article less of a promotional piece (which is what the problem is stated as being). CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse with liberty to recreate, starting with a carefully-sourced stub. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've restored the history to help the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)