This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arbustoo (talk | contribs) at 03:58, 21 January 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:58, 21 January 2006 by Arbustoo (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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
- Delete per nom. Doing something non-notable for 60 years does not make it notable. Postdlf 21:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep--Hayson 21:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Similar reasons to Mike Randall article. If the articles can be improved to establish some notability I will reconsider. Andrewa 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see anything notable about provosts. Provost (education) doesn't mention any by name. At any rate, if there are any notable provosts, I'd presume that they would come from accredited state universities, or at least accredited, high-ranking private schools. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (weak) per great gavini.the1physicist 23:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep baceuse it is part of an article series, but so short and quite uninformative, should be improven. Gubbubu 23:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- ATTENTION
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
- 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)
- Comment: Itake, that is "meatpuppetry" at its finest. As for the complaints about the admin, we're right back to Argument by insinuation. I also received the same email, and frankly felt it was in bad faith--skirting the edges of honesty. Stow the complaints and cut the foul language. The article has been nominated: let the nomination take its course without raising personal issues. Justin Eiler 01:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Meatpuppetry would be the user having all his friends register and then vote. ENLIGHTENING other wikipedian users about this problem is in no way meatpuppetry. The one who raised personal issues here was Cyde, accusing the author of using multies and cheating. That's bad, and it needs a counterreaction. There is nothing dishonest about that mail, not in one place does the author of the letter tell a lie or similar. He doesn't even tell, he doesn't even ENCOURAGE people to vote "Keep". Not meatpuppetry in any way, if you are going to continue accusing him of meatpuppetry you need to present a convincing argument for it. Otherwise it will only be a continuation of the lies and slander you people are already throwing the author. Itake 01:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Itake, that is "meatpuppetry" at its finest. As for the complaints about the admin, we're right back to Argument by insinuation. I also received the same email, and frankly felt it was in bad faith--skirting the edges of honesty. Stow the complaints and cut the foul language. The article has been nominated: let the nomination take its course without raising personal issues. Justin Eiler 01:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, are you serious? What, precisely, do you think(?) this means? "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." Come on, dude, wake up and smell the, as you so aptly put it, bullshit. Jim62sch 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- To Itake: "Insinuating" ... this guy is shopping for votes calling those who want to delete the pages as people with "bad faith." Using Christ as a tool to get votes. Targeting those of religion with religion for keep votes. 03:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if not for the "diploma mill" for his other activities. --Vizcarra 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)