Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination): 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 19:54, 20 January 2006 editAndrewa (talk | contribs)Administrators61,996 editsm typos← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:25, 30 April 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(94 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown)
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 '''delete'''. The final tally was 42 delete, 18 keep, 11 merge. I discounted 8 votes (7K/1D) for being either from newbies or not having real reasons (e.g., "it exists" -- my big toe exists but it doesn't deserve an article). Even if I had kept them, we'd have 43&ndash;25, or 63% delete. Also note that most merge votes were "merge or delete." This really should be a merge IMHO, which should satisfy the inclusionist bloc who don't want to see the content deleted. Really, we're talking 44Kb for a list of people? The vote stacking also really disturbs me. I noticed that a number of the people in the inclusionist bloc all voted on the same AfD discussions, all right in a row, which strongly implies they were here only because of their wikiphilosophy (still, I didn't discount their votes). <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)   ===]=== '''Note - this page has been refactored. Comments have been moved to the talk page''' Please try to stay on-topic and focus on the article and the contributions. - ]]] 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC) <br/>   ''See: ]''<br/> List of mostly non-notable people connected (sometimes loosely) with a diploma mill attended by the originator of the article. ] 02:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)   *'''Delete''' per nom. ] 02:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong keep'''. This list is like other university lists on Misplaced Pages. Helpful and informative. --] 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC) ''See: ]''<br/> ::'''Comment''' Gastrich would be the article originator who attends the mill in question. The ], BTW, was removed for not being properly listed and never recieved the full vote or discussion. ] 02:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC) :::'''Comment''': The accusations that ] is a diploma mill are being debated. However, if you read the talk page for the entry, you will see that the university clearly doesn't meet the criteria for a diploma mill (e.g. it has a campus and on-campus students/teachers/courses, founded in 1973, has 1100+ students, has lenghty degree and writing requirements, requires lengthy dissertations and theses, etc.). The only criteria it does fulfill is that it's unaccredited, but many Christian institutions elect to avoid governmental accreditation and there is no evidence that LBU tried for it and didn't get it. --] 18:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC) ::::Those aren't the criteria for a diploma mill. A diploma mill confers "earned" degrees for nonexistent ''or grossly deficient'' accademic work. Lack of accreditation creates a strong presumption that a school is a mill, and I've seen nothing from you to rebut that. You misrepresent the nature of accreditation: there is no "governmental accreditation", only private agencies recognized as legit by the government, one of which is explicitly Christian (and agencies ''not'' recognized, like the one that "accredits" LBU). ] 20:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC) :::::::With all due respect, you haven't read what I wrote and what others have written. I took the 10 well-recognized criteria and showed that LBU only met 1.5/10. I also wrote above things that are opposite a diploma mill's standards. Plus, I've given my personal experience regarding the numbers of years it has taken to earn my degrees from LBU. I wrote much (or all) of this at ]. So, with all due respect, if you close your eyes, you can see nothing quite clearly. --] 22:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC) ::::::As a matter of fact, I have read it. There's no 1.5 about it. Claiming bogus accreditation isn't half a criteria, it's the whole thing. And as was already pointed out to you, the two are the ''main point''. You've ignored that in favor of the false precision of repeating 1.5, when it's not a matter of numbers but rigor. Likewise, it can take as long as a real degree but without academic rigor it's still a diploma mill. ] 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ::::::::LBU doesn't "claim bogus accreditation." No, it isn't the whole thing. If it was, the list would be absurd and invalid. Furthermore, who is to say that it's the main point? Oh yeah, Dave Horn (WarriorScribe). Don't be so quick to take his word as gospel. --] 06:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)     ::::::::* Ho, hum...Gastrich gets it wrong again and tries to sneak in a reference to his stolen-domain-name group (which allows no rebuttal) and his lies? Several of them have been exposed, rebutted, or refuted here:   ::::::::** ::::::::** ::::::::** ::::::::** ::::::::** ::::::::** ::::::::** ::::::::** ::::::::**   ::::::::** ... and he has run from every one of them...and then some.   ::::::::* Gastrich has done a pretty good job of stretching out his throat and handing out knives in the last 24 hours or so. You'd think he'd want to keep ''me'' out of it; but perhaps he's a glutton for punishment. - ] 07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)   ::::::::* RoyBoy already pointed out the idiocy of Gastrich's claims about LBU and his "score" with respect to a list that he picked (out of many that could have been picked). RoyBoy was quite right to point out that the it was not an all-or-nothing proposition with respect to the list, but Gastrich just can't seem to get it. Draw your own conclusions. LBU does not teach research skills, investigatory skills, nor critical thinking skills. It has exceptionally lax standards, in practice and is sub-standard as an educational institution. Gastrich's own alleged "rebuttal" to the ] is actually a good example, since it served as the basis for his "Master of Arts" from the school and, according to Gastrich, also served as the basis for his "doctorate." I'll be looking over the alleged "thesis" and "dissertation" when I'm in that part of the country, come April, but if what I have seen thus far is any indication, given Gastrich's rather superficial thinking skills and almost non-existent research skills, demonstrated thus far, I don't expect to be surprised. - ] 07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)   ::::::::AJA, you call yourself a Christian, but you are very quick to offend them. Do you realize that there are 1100+ students at LBU and thousands of graduates? I'm sure your callous and erroneous accusations are quite offensive to all of them. WWJD? --] 06:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)   :::::::::Their bogus accreditation is the whole criteria. No, not criteria: "GetEducated.com’s Top 10 ''Red Flags'' – Online Diploma Mills" Red flags are not criteria you can check off mechanistically, and it never had any kind of authoritative status anyway.   :::::::::I like how you seem to think a real Christian would never say anything that might offend the likes of Bill Gothard. ] 06:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)   ::::::::* To find out what ''Gastrich'' thinks Jesus would do, consult previous encounter that included another Christian. I find two things interesting about Gastrich's use of "WWJD.'" The first is that Gastrich has been asked this many times with respect to things that he writes or his own acts, and the reference above is the only direct response that I've ever seen. The second is that it's also interesting that, in light of his actions, he's been asked that a couple of times, hasn't answered, and now copy-cats the question to someone else. - ] 06:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)   ::::::::* Oh, and it's almost amusing to see Gastrich complain about someone ''else'' offending Christians. You know, it wouldn't take much to go into the Google archives and find lots of examples of Gastrich doing exactly that. - ] 07:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)   Funny Gastrich didn't mention ] and his views of   LBU from the same section. Here's a list from Levicoff's book, let's see if LBU meets that criteria.   :All I've seen from Levicoff is someone posting an alleged quote of his on Usenet. While on his "sabbatical" job hunt, Horn is supposed to be getting his book from the library. Maybe he can scan a page that mentions LBU. If he could, then we'd '''finally have one somewhat reputable source calling LBU a diploma mill.''' Until that time, we have zero. --] 06:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)   *'''Delete''' per nomination. I thought we had categories for this list junk anyways (though I'd support this being deleted from categories as well). -- ] | ] | 02:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep.''' List of notable people connected with a wonderful school.--] 03:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Line 51 ⟶ 21: *'''Merge''' into ]. This article is vanity on its own, but the main article has an incomplete section on alumini. However, many sections, such as "General alumni," will be removed, as Misplaced Pages is ] a directory ("indiscriminate collection of information"). ]] 03:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC) **'''Delete''' if merging is not possible. ]] 02:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Notable school. But may I suggest renaming it? — ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC) **The school itself already has an article. ] 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC) :::This is irrelvant. As it has been shown, 60 universities have entries '''and''' a list of people. --] 22:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC) ::::It's relevant to ''his vote'', which had a rational about the notability of the school but suggested renaming it, which strongly suggests he thought he was voting on whether there should be any article about it at all. The other lists aren't relevant because if we take out the deadwood (i.e., the red links and the links that are going to go red and the people only marginally connected to the mill), there's hardly anything left. Plenty of schools have a lot of notable graduates. The mill you're wasting your time at? Not so much. ] 22:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC) * <s>'''Merge''' as per Scythos</s> *'''Delete''' ] ] 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong Delete''' Non-notable school, school has an entry at Misplaced Pages, superficially padded list of persons, mostly of little or no notability. Not helpful or informative, a space waster - ] 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per nomination. Are these types of lists even used for accredited universities? Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of unnotable people. If there are any notables put them on the university page. ] ] 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Line 62 ⟶ 32: :::I know. It's a good thing and par for the course on Misplaced Pages. There isn't an unaccredited category specifically for lists right now. You can create one if you like. --] 05:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep''' This is a great list. LBU is a great university with many impressive grads.--] 06:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC) ''See: ]''<br/> ::'''note:''' to date, this user has nine edits. Four on Afd's related to Jason Gastrich. Amazingly this new user found the that was not even listed in Afd. ] ] 06:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC) ::: that is something to be asked on ] for an answer ] 06:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC) :::'''comment''' This wouldn't be the first time Gastrich has tried to astroturf an AfD vote. ] 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''keep''' please this list is informative and too big to put on the main article ] 06:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''' ]. ] 06:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Merge''' into ]. ] 07:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. It is probably libellous to claim without clear references that people are "graduates" of a diploma mill. Whoever can be verified as actually themselves claiming a degree from LBU can be mentioned in the ]. ] 08:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Borderline libellous per Tups, borderline listcruft, borderline lack of notability, and Gastrich's vote recruiting tips my teetering vote over all three lines. --] <small>]</small> 09:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''weak keep''' could do with renaming "List of notable alumni" or something like that. ] 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' article as nn list of mostly nn people. ] an indiscriminate collection of information. I would not oppose merging '''only''' the more notable names who already have WP articles into the main LBU article. ] 13:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep'''* It is our constitutual right to be able to speak on any subject that we choose and not to discriminate on basis of religion--] 17:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC) ''See: ]''<br/> ::'''note:''' to date, this user has four edits. ALL on Afd's related to Jason Gastrich. With regard to constitutional rights, who is stopping you speak? With regard to discrimination, if they are deleted it will be because they are unnotable NOT because they are Christian. ] ] 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC) ::'''comment:''' This "user" needs to brush up on what a "constitutional right" actually is. ] 18:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong Delete''' - mostly non-notable, a non-notable connection, and what few parts are worthy can be included on the LBU page. Constitutional rights? Gimme a break, this isn't a court. -] 17:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Merge''' if not delete. ] 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' - The list of people isn't that long, and it appears like the more notable of them are already included in the LBU page anyway. ''']''' ]</fontspan>]] 19:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong 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. <small>&mdash;''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> **Please login and sign your comments with four tildes. If you don't have a user account, register for one. Anonymous votes aren't really counted in AfDs. --''']''' ]</fontspan>]] 20:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' or Merge with main article. ] 20:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''' More vote-stacking: . ] 22:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Line 90 ⟶ 57: :There's nothing vote stacking or wrong with encouraging people to vote. --] 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC) ::'''Comment''' Funny, isn't it, that when an AfD concerns an article of yours that people never seen before come crawling out of the woodwork to vote with you? ] 14:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' categorize if you ''have'' to <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font>span | <font colorstyle="color:#0033FF6BA800;">T</span>]] | ]</font>span | <font colorstyle="color:#FF00000033FF;">@</span>]] | ]</fontspan>]]</sup></small> 01:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Vanity piece by Gastrich and co-agents of LBU diploma mill nonsense.] 01:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per nom --] 03:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Line 109 ⟶ 76: He goes on to give links to all of his articles that are noted for deletion. He also doesn't point out these articles are authored by himself. - I would say that this languaged is charged to skew voting. I have been a longtime fan and user of Wiki and this is the first time I've been interested in its process. ] 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)   :This borders on paranoia "''unbelievers also edit there and they actively try to silence Christian input and revert our contributions''". First, I suspect that not all people voting to "''revert Christian input''" are "''unbelievers''". I challenge Jason Gastrich to offer evidence for a single case of "''Christian input''", that is both notable and NPOV, being successfully reverted by unbelievers. I have only seen non-notable edits and POV edits from Christians being reverted. This is not a conspiracy since we all know that the "''unbleievers''" who post POV and non notable contributions are also reverted. Please stop trying to provoke trouble. ] ] 21:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC) ''See: ]''<br/> ::'''Comment''': I actively try and get people to come and be a part of the Misplaced Pages community. I don't want anyone to ever come, vote, and leave. This is obvious from the verbiage on my organization's web site . --] 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC) ::::You are spreading gossip about wikipedia and presenting it in an unfavorable light. Will the new editors arrive expecting hoardes of "''unbelievers''"? Stick to the facts. Thankyou. ] ] 22:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC) :::::He's also making a quite serious accusation about me personally, only he doesn't have the guts to come out and say it. All this is specifically about my nominations, so this stuff about "unbelievers" means me. Only I'm a Christian, as he was aware of before writing. So he's accusing me of being a false brother, without having the courage or honesty to say it plainly, or even the basic fidelity to Scriptural teachings to discuss it with me privately first. ] 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ::::::So we can keep this on topic, I'll reply to you on your talk page. --] 07:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :::'''Comment''' Nonsense. Your emailing specifically names articles of yours and the deletion votes ongoing. You're not "encouraging participation," you're trying to influence the AfD votes. And quite blatantly at that. ] 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep''' university-related topics are notable. ] 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC) **Care to back that up? This isn't a university. It's an unaccredited school that happens to use the word university in its name. --]</fontspan>]] 22:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Merge''' any actual notables into the university article, otherwise '''delete'''. Solicited a favourable vote from me via email because I am listed as an inclusionist. I would like to point out that the inclusionist motto is "with truth preserved."...not "with vanity preserved." Well established, accredited institutions usually do warrant a seperate list of notable graduates...Harvard, for example, is very likely to have a huge list of notable graduates which would be too long for the main article...but LBU's list (even if they are all truly notable) is short enough to fit fine into the main article. If this article is kept, then I vote to have an undeletable list of all people who have read the ] article. ] 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Merge''' any actual notables into the university article, otherwise '''delete'''. --] 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Line 132 ⟶ 95: ::::The search isn't working on my computer, but states that Bob Jones University has recieved accreditation. ]] 02:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :::::To be exact, they have candidacy status , which means they're in basic compliance with the standards. It's apparently a kind of probationary accreditation. IIRC, even before they were accredited BJU was considered to have one of the top accountancy programs in the country, which to my mind is enough to overcome the presumption that an unaccredited school is a mill. (Still wouldn't want to go there.) ] 03:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *Well, we could ''first'' remove anything from this list that wasn't ]erifiable from ]. That would be the barest of minumums, and is absolutley beyond negotiation. We could ''then'' take the little (if anything) that is left and merge it into its parent article, probably deleting the redirect as useless. We could ''then'' have a bun-fight on the article's talk page about what is meaningful to keep, ending up with like four names. Or we could simply '''delete''' this now, as its only purpose is to provide a list of articles that are AfD candidates as they don't meet ]. - ]]] 02:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment:''' According to a ], has 1,010,000 results, while only has 782. Bob Jones University is clearly more notable than Louisiana Baptist University, so that is a different case. ]] 02:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :Google isn't the only indicator of notablity. --] 02:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Line 141 ⟶ 104: * '''Merge''' into ]. ]&nbsp;<sup >]]]</sup > 07:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC) * '''Merge''' with ]. Yes, Gastrich, I'm an inclusionist. I also have absolutely no problem with alerting people to ongoing votes, and think that people who vote against simply because of that are being incredibly dense, but that doesn't mean I don't weigh the article's merits once alerted. I'm not going to pass judgment on whether LSU is a diploma mill or not, but don't think I'm just a tool to use for voting keep on every article on the deletion listings. I'm going to give each of the articles you sent to me careful consideration, and will vote accordingly. If you were expecting me to charge in and vote keep without reading anything, you don't know me very well. ] 10:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *<s>'''Merge'''. Useful content, but doesn't need to stand in an article of its own. --] 12:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)</s> **'''Abstain'''. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --] 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) * '''Strong keep''' We can't just throw out something related to something intellectual (in this case, a university) while other articles related to things like sport are kept. It is not of stub length, and is useful and informative. This could save someone a lot of searching. - 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ] <sup>] * '''Strong keep''' We can't just throw out something related to something intellectual (in this case, a university) while other articles related to things like sport are kept. It is not of stub length, and is useful and informative. This could save someone a lot of searching. - 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ] ] * '''Keep'''. Useful content is useful content; keep it around. ] 13:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)kerobaros *'''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. There is no wikipedia article on "Diplomamill". User:Itake|Itake]] 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC) **This is ''not'' a discussion about the article on ] (which is not a public institution). That article has ''not'' been nominated for deletion. This is only about the list called ]. BTW, there is an article on ]. ] 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC) * '''keeep''' I think it can be notable and it is interesting. ] 22:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)   ::'''abstain''' I don't know enough about this here yet so I'm abstaining for now. But it seems to me that alot of these articles here, the bio's I mean, pass into the notable stage and are verifiable. I'm not a christian by a long shot and I have issues with fundamentalism in a big way but that doesn't mean these folks don't deserve to be here. The criteria for me here is, "is this article useful as a way to initiate research" and clearly it is. If I was interested in, say, the history of baptist thinking or wanted to make a wash list of baptist notable, I could use this as a start. A PERFECT WIKI ARTICLE in my opion. Line 161 ⟶ 126: ::: I do hide my own POV. And comparing the LBU to Harvard is nothing short of silly. They aren't even in the same league. The LBU is noteworthy in its own way. Its an american institution, which is why it listed on the english wikipedia. On the Swedish wikipedia, alot of small schools have their own entries. None complains. So no, thats not a good reason. There are no other articles with these names, so there's no name conflict. There's no nothing, except silly notions about the standard of education on the school. This guy is by all accounts an important person, so he deserves a page. ] 18:01, 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. --]</fontspan>]] 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ---- ''See: ]''<br/> ::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 ---- ::'''comment''' I got this email to. And I'm here because of it. But I can make up my own mind about these things. I'm insulted by the implication that just because I was led here by this email, someone I can't distinguish or discern. I CAN. I won't vote automatically to keep these articles but I'm really questioning the objectivity of both sides here. Equating a campaining email like this with vote stacking, ballot box stuffing, etc. does not follow. He's simply fishing for support and there is not a damn thing wrong with that. Now, I'm not saying that the author is not biased or that he does not have a POV. Its obvious he does and its obvious what it is. But CLEARLY, many of the people who are voting to delete here HAVE a POV and it is EQUALLY OBVIOUS. The question for me is, can we verify this article, is the list a useful research tool, and can it be made to confirm to the NPOV requirements of the wiki. ] 16:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)   ::: there's obviously a lot of emotion on both sides and for me, that's a red flag for bias and personal involvement. Maybe both sides need to take a step back from the computer screen and evaluate their positions and statements on this. ] 16:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)     *'''Keep''', solely based upon the merits of the article. The actions being taken here on either side are divisive and very, very troublesome. ] 16:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ''See: ]''<br/> **I've noticed no actions taken by the so-called deletionist 'side' that compare with vote-stacking, meatpuppetry, personal attacks, and above all, the attempt to divide Misplaced Pages into martyred Christians and the atheist ]. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nominating an article for deletion that doesn't actually contravene policy in good faith, as some people are trying to make out; that is what AfD is for, so editors can nominate articles they think aren't acceptable and leave it to others to decide. Making a fuss just because something is nominated, almost before people have even begun to vote, shows either a) lack of knowledge of the deletion process or b) lack of confidence in the ability of the article to survive outside scrutiny. I know the only thing worse than making sides is picking one, but really, there is no need to try to be even-handed just for the sake of it here. --] <small>]</small> 16:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ::: Nice, but very silly rant. What was the point? ] 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ::::Sarcasm is not so Christian. His point is the last time you participated in an AfD was Aug 2004. i would have thought that was obvious. ] ] 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ::::: Neither is being an ass. The last time I participated in an AfD has very little to do this. ] 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ::::::I'm an ass for stating the obvious? Gastrich e-mailed you to participate and here you are. That is neither POV or controversial its just what happened. Or do you think that ] is wrong? ] ] 19:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :::::: You're an ass for being an ass. Simple logic. When did anyone mention an email being sent to me? And yes, I think user Last_Malthusian is wrong. ] 19:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''', This information is valuable and should be included. Salva veritate ] 17:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)   Line 212 ⟶ 140: *'''Delete'''. List of financial transactions, in effect, and not verifiable by reasonable means short of people's receipts. ] 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC) * '''Keep''' same as above. --] 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' silensor says clearly what I was thinking... article establishes its reason for existing. It does appear it may have problems keeping focuses however. &nbsp;]]] 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. What a ]. The ] was lost. (The ] seems to have been abandonned rather than closed - pity, needs cleaning up when the dust settles.) The list of delete arguments above includes some valid ones but also many ] and other irrelevancies. (Let me pre-empt two others by saying that I am a Christian, and I have been emailed on this. See ].) For example, if we were to delete every article on a university contributed by any of its alumni, we'd lose a '''lot''' of good content. A '''brief''' mention of lobbying and sock-puppet allegations is appropriate, but alleged vested interests are at best borderline arguments IMO. What should count is user contribution history, and the article itself. ] 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong keep'''. <small>&mdash;''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> : User has a total of 14 edits. ] 06:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong keep'''. --] 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (The previous unsigned message was not from me) *'''Keep''' Regardless of people's opinion of the information, it is still good information. I actually found the article quite useful.] 21:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Weak delete''', since most of the people listed aren't notable in themselves, but if ] et al. are kept, then my vote can be for a weak keep instead. Including it (or not) should depend on the results of the related AfD's. --] (]) 23:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :'''Strong DELETE;''' -- why not have an article for every unknown fringe person who graduated from South Succotash High School in an article. This is just ridiculous self-promotion. ] 02:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment:''' Please ]. Disagree with the idea, not the person. I am not using this statement to attack a specific side of the debate, as both sides are violating this policy. Also, ]. This is the internet, which means that everybody should have the capability to give their points of view without directly offending others. ]] 03:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC) **Finally, please sign all of your posts with four tildes, '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''' to ensure that others know who posted the comment. ]] 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' article, non-notables list takes up room. ] 03:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC) :Riiiiiiight. --] 07:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC) :: Your comments to those that oppose keeping this and your emails to those who will likely side with your views really shows your character. You are not right and thus only way you get people to support you is to a play the religious martyr role--- which many people don't buy. ] 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. A few of these people are editors, and authors, and notable people. They belong on an encyclopedia. ] 18:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC) :*Which few are you talking about? One option is to merge them into the ] page. ] ] 18:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC) :: Actually they already appear on the ] page. I don't really see why people are talking about keeping the names page (they are already on the article page) or merge. ] 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) *'''strong abstain'''. deep breaths everyone! ] 18:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC) :::You don't see why people are talking about keeping the names page? That's what this nomination is about! Furthermore, there are 68 other "names pages" like it for various universities. They haven't been merged with their university. --] 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC) : How many times are you going to post you abstain. ] 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''' I hope something is going to be done about this ballot stuffing. ] 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. 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.... ] 04:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor... **Dude, it's not a Christians vs. the Detroit Lions situation. I'm an atheist (because I reject Christ's far-left socialist teachings)--I want to keep it because anything that actually exists is worthy of an article. ] 15:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) *Exactly my point. This shouldn't be about religion, only about what's best for wikipedia... ] 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC) ''See: ]''<br/> *'''Keep''' The subjects of the article clearly exist. ] 15:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) :*Indeed they do. And the ones who are genuinely notable (and a few who are not) are already linked in the LBU article, which is certainly not overlarge. So this separate article is unnecessary. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Unencyclopedic list. Vote stacking attempt leaves a bad taste in my mouth. --] | <sup>] | ]</sup> 15:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Vote stacking, sock-puppetry, and general disruption has made it impossible to fairly evaluate this article, but it appears to be a list of non-notable people associated with a non-notable school. At the very least, merge. ] 16:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - Yes I was found this all by myself - Keep this per Kurt.--''']]''' 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per ]. ] 19:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per ]. --] 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC) ''See: ]''<br/> *'''Keep''' Stop hating on anyone with religion. ] 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC) ::I think the reason this has gotten so blown up is because Jason recruted help by emailing inclusionists. Deletionists did the same thing as well. Really, let's keep this between the two camps and not bring the gods into this! Factions are killing wikipedia. ] :::Anti-factionalist fearmongering ;-) ] 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. ] 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' Indicate they are LBU alumni on each person's biographical article. ] 03:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' LBU may be a ], but nonetheless there are a number of "graduates" who have articles on Misplaced Pages. Assuming these articles themselves aren't vanity (or the association to the college isn't made up), I see no reason why it's different from any of the other university lists on Misplaced Pages. I might agree to a policy to delete all of the "X university people" lists as ], but I see no reason to single this one out. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per nom. ] ] 03:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' - while a diploma mill might have some notability, the people associated with it -- not so much.--] 08:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''', per nom.] 08:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''', per nom. &mdash; ''''']'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks"></span>)</small>''' <small>13:19, Jan. 23, 2006</small> *'''Merge''' into Louisiana Baptist University page. I believe this list has a place on wikipedia, but it would be a nearly empty list as most of the people are non-notable, and we don't need to have nearly empty lists. ] 16:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Merge/Delete''' Diploma mill, in other words, they can hand out diplomas to anyone. So this list doesn't mean anything. ] <small>]</small> 18:12, 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 23:25, 30 April 2022

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 delete. The final tally was 42 delete, 18 keep, 11 merge. I discounted 8 votes (7K/1D) for being either from newbies or not having real reasons (e.g., "it exists" -- my big toe exists but it doesn't deserve an article). Even if I had kept them, we'd have 43–25, or 63% delete. Also note that most merge votes were "merge or delete." This really should be a merge IMHO, which should satisfy the inclusionist bloc who don't want to see the content deleted. Really, we're talking 44Kb for a list of people? The vote stacking also really disturbs me. I noticed that a number of the people in the inclusionist bloc all voted on the same AfD discussions, all right in a row, which strongly implies they were here only because of their wikiphilosophy (still, I didn't discount their votes). howcheng {chat} 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Louisiana Baptist University people

Note - this page has been refactored. Comments have been moved to the talk page Please try to stay on-topic and focus on the article and the contributions. - brenneman 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

See: I - Puppetry and RfC discussion
List of mostly non-notable people connected (sometimes loosely) with a diploma mill attended by the originator of the article. A.J.A. 02:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

See: II - Accrediatation discussion

note: This is Heaven Helpers first edit in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
This is irrelvant. As it has been shown, 60 universities have entries and a list of people. --Jason Gastrich 22:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It's relevant to his vote, which had a rational about the notability of the school but suggested renaming it, which strongly suggests he thought he was voting on whether there should be any article about it at all. The other lists aren't relevant because if we take out the deadwood (i.e., the red links and the links that are going to go red and the people only marginally connected to the mill), there's hardly anything left. Plenty of schools have a lot of notable graduates. The mill you're wasting your time at? Not so much. A.J.A. 22:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they're used for many universities, institutes, and colleges. --Jason Gastrich 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you're right. That is a very impressive list of 60 universities. Is there are seperate category for non-accredited universities? Or will we have to create a new category for this list? David D. (Talk) 05:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I know. It's a good thing and par for the course on Misplaced Pages. There isn't an unaccredited category specifically for lists right now. You can create one if you like. --Jason Gastrich 05:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

See: III - User has nine edits

See: IV - Rights

There's nothing vote stacking or wrong with encouraging people to vote. --Jason Gastrich 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Funny, isn't it, that when an AfD concerns an article of yours that people never seen before come crawling out of the woodwork to vote with you? Mark K. Bilbo 14:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
How do you know it's of interest to very few people? There are 59 lists like it. Do you happen to know how many of those are important to how many different people? --Jason Gastrich 18:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the 59 others are accredited and the schools are actually rather significant on their own. Harvestdancer 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep(strong) First of all, the nom uses very subjective language. Diploma mill is a pretty crappy spin to put on things. Second, there may be someone who wants to do research on the school and its associates, why not have a page? Brokenfrog 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a page for the school itself, which lists notable alums. This list is redundant to that page. -Harvestdancer 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (strong) I don't see how this is necessary with the inclusion of notables on LBU's page. The discussion seems to be mostly reasonable peppered other than the personal attacks from the author. I would say that there would be vote stacking. I received notice of this from a email list headed by Jason Gastrich himself. If I could get a place to host I would be happy to post said email. To quote from that message:

"...Several weeks ago, JCSM (Jesus Christ Saves Ministries) noticed this trend and created a new ministry called Wiki4Christ. It's an organization that exists to make sure Christians have a united and represented voice on Misplaced Pages. As you may imagine, unbelievers also edit there and they actively try to silence Christian input and revert our contributions; especially Christian biographies! This is where we need you, now.

Yesterday, the entries below were nominated for deletion. This means there will be a vote on whether or not to keep them. Please come and let your voice be heard! This endeavor will only take 10-15 minutes and it will be something you can do with your online time that will further the kingdom of God. Wouldn't you like to vote to keep Christian entries on Misplaced Pages?..."

He goes on to give links to all of his articles that are noted for deletion. He also doesn't point out these articles are authored by himself. - I would say that this languaged is charged to skew voting. I have been a longtime fan and user of Wiki and this is the first time I've been interested in its process. Jazzscrub 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

See: V - Paranoia

  • Strong Keep university-related topics are notable. Cynical 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge any actual notables into the university article, otherwise delete. Solicited a favourable vote from me via email because I am listed as an inclusionist. I would like to point out that the inclusionist motto is "with truth preserved."...not "with vanity preserved." Well established, accredited institutions usually do warrant a seperate list of notable graduates...Harvard, for example, is very likely to have a huge list of notable graduates which would be too long for the main article...but LBU's list (even if they are all truly notable) is short enough to fit fine into the main article. If this article is kept, then I vote to have an undeletable list of all people who have read the Invisible Pink Unicorn article. bcatt 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge any actual notables into the university article, otherwise delete. --Devein 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with original article. This AfD appears to be in danger of going off-topic. This is suppose to be about whether or not the article is worth keeping, not about whether or not LBU is a "degree mill" or not, or the merits of accreditation, or other stuff this AfD is bringing up. Let's get back on topic, does this article deserve to exist? I say yes, why not, otherwise, we should begin removing other school's lists. It could probably be paired down to be just notable alumni, but it still deserves to exist.--Azathar 23:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The quoted phrase from your post above, "or the merits of accreditation," is incorrect. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a directory of vanity. I agree with the merge, but Louisiana Baptist University is an unaccredited institution of higher learning and is not notable enough to deserve its own page for alumini. The only thing more ridiculous is that there are vanity biographies made of these non-notable people featured on the alumini. Finally, Jason Gastrich is making personal attacks and encouraging people who obviously do not know the entire situation to blindly support him via email. I am not criticizing Christianity, but this method of vote stacking is inexplicably ludicrous. I am trying very hard to restraining myself from making stronger comments, but that may not be possible in the near future. Sycthos 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Upon reviewing the Wiki 4 Christ site, and its objectives, I have several comments to make. It is fine that you are creating this organization, but Misplaced Pages's vanity rules take priority over everything. Lists of alumini on unaccredited universities and biographies on non-notable Christian missionaries are unacceptable. If you have a dispute, create your own wiki site. Sycthos 02:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for your comment. However, I disagree with you and I believe that some unaccredited universities deserve lists of people associated with them. For instance, Bob Jones University is unaccredited. Why shouldn't they have a list? The fact remains that there are many notable alumni and a list is a good thing to have, so they can be organized and, well, listed. The fact that they haven't sought government accreditation means little; especially in light of its alumni and academic requirements. --Jason Gastrich 02:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, BJU is accredited. A.J.A. 02:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Gastrich you made two errors: LBU did apply for accreditation and was denied. And BJU does have accreditation from Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), Accreditation Commission, see .
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.196 (talk • contribs) .
I don't see anything about them applying and being denied. Also, this link doesn't tell me that they are accredited, now. I've read that they have applied for TRACS accreditation and were waiting on their decision. --Jason Gastrich 02:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The LBU 1998 request by TRACS (the people who approved BJU) was denied-- this was explained once to you already on the LBU talk page. A discussion about the inquiry with Steve Levicoff and the denial of the approval in 2000.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.196 (talk • contribs) .
The search isn't working on my computer, but this article states that Bob Jones University has recieved accreditation. Sycthos 02:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
To be exact, they have candidacy status , which means they're in basic compliance with the standards. It's apparently a kind of probationary accreditation. IIRC, even before they were accredited BJU was considered to have one of the top accountancy programs in the country, which to my mind is enough to overcome the presumption that an unaccredited school is a mill. (Still wouldn't want to go there.) A.J.A. 03:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, we could first remove anything from this list that wasn't WP:Verifiable from Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. That would be the barest of minumums, and is absolutley beyond negotiation. We could then take the little (if anything) that is left and merge it into its parent article, probably deleting the redirect as useless. We could then have a bun-fight on the article's talk page about what is meaningful to keep, ending up with like four names. Or we could simply delete this now, as its only purpose is to provide a list of articles that are AfD candidates as they don't meet WP:BIO. - brenneman 02:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: According to a google test, Bob Jones University has 1,010,000 results, while Louisiana Baptist University only has 782. Bob Jones University is clearly more notable than Louisiana Baptist University, so that is a different case. Sycthos 02:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Google isn't the only indicator of notablity. --Jason Gastrich 02:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Very true. However, from a Yahoo! test, Louisiana Baptist University scored 1,570 hits while Bob Jones University scored 772,000. The margin of difference is simply too large to consider otherwise. From an Alexa test, Bob Jones University has a ranking of 82,173, while Louisiana Baptist University dosen't even have a ranking. Sycthos 02:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As others have stated, these seems partially redundant with the notables list, and the author's arguments do not persuade me of this list's worthiness (or indeed, the worthiness of many of the list's items) KrazyCaley 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, if not delete. I may be an inclusionist, but I'm not stupid. —Nightstallion (?) 06:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge any actual notables into the university article, otherwise delete. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Louisiana Baptist University. Alphax  07:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Louisiana Baptist University. Yes, Gastrich, I'm an inclusionist. I also have absolutely no problem with alerting people to ongoing votes, and think that people who vote against simply because of that are being incredibly dense, but that doesn't mean I don't weigh the article's merits once alerted. I'm not going to pass judgment on whether LSU is a diploma mill or not, but don't think I'm just a tool to use for voting keep on every article on the deletion listings. I'm going to give each of the articles you sent to me careful consideration, and will vote accordingly. If you were expecting me to charge in and vote keep without reading anything, you don't know me very well. Rogue 9 10:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Useful content, but doesn't need to stand in an article of its own. --StuffOfInterest 12:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep We can't just throw out something related to something intellectual (in this case, a university) while other articles related to things like sport are kept. It is not of stub length, and is useful and informative. This could save someone a lot of searching. - 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini lobster telephone
  • Keep. Useful content is useful content; keep it around. Kerobaros 13:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)kerobaros
  • 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. There is no wikipedia article on "Diplomamill". User:Itake|Itake]] 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keeep I think it can be notable and it is interesting. Gubbubu 22:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
abstain I don't know enough about this here yet so I'm abstaining for now. But it seems to me that alot of these articles here, the bio's I mean, pass into the notable stage and are verifiable. I'm not a christian by a long shot and I have issues with fundamentalism in a big way but that doesn't mean these folks don't deserve to be here. The criteria for me here is, "is this article useful as a way to initiate research" and clearly it is. If I was interested in, say, the history of baptist thinking or wanted to make a wash list of baptist notable, I could use this as a start. A PERFECT WIKI ARTICLE in my opion.
And just to be above board here, I was asked to come vote here by the author. This is not vote stacking or Ballot stuffing , it is simply campaigning. Those of you opposed to this author or these entries will just have to trust that the people who are brought in can make up their own minds regardless of how they got here. Personally, I'm questioning the objectivity and neutrality of both sides here. This is an encyclopedia without page limits and in order to avoid charges of bias especially in these controversial areas, we should always err on the side of inclusiveness.Ginar 14:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
These articles aren't controversial in any way. The self-proclaimed "deletecrew" that haunts this site makes topics like this controversial by attacking them because of their own POV views.Itake 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Comment - How many people are here because Gastrich emailed all the inclusionists on the vain hope that you automatically vote to keep articles? An argument for delete can be made that should be acceptable to inclusionists - put the valuable intellectual content where it belongs, in the LBU article, and no content is lost. I know that there are several such inclusionists here, although since Gastrich used email instead of talk pages, there's no Wiki trail of proof like there is for his wikichrist crowd. -Harvestdancer 15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you atleast try and hide your own POV like all the others do? Seriously, I'm asking again. Give me a good argument why this should be deleted. Itake 16:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I already did. Unlike Harvard, LBU is not as significant an institution of higher learning. Some schools warrant their own page of notable alumni simply because of the size of such a list. This page, on the other hand, can easily be included in the LBU article without any loss of content and therefore, by mergist principles, does not warrant a separate page. Will you try to hide your POV, like you say everyone but the two of us tries to do? -Harvestdancer 16:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I do hide my own POV. And comparing the LBU to Harvard is nothing short of silly. They aren't even in the same league. The LBU is noteworthy in its own way. Its an american institution, which is why it listed on the english wikipedia. On the Swedish wikipedia, alot of small schools have their own entries. None complains. So no, thats not a good reason. There are no other articles with these names, so there's no name conflict. There's no nothing, except silly notions about the standard of education on the school. This guy is by all accounts an important person, so he deserves a page. Itake 18:01, 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. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

See: XII - Email

See: XIII - Bias?

User has a total of 14 edits. Arbustoo 06:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong DELETE; -- why not have an article for every unknown fringe person who graduated from South Succotash High School in an article. This is just ridiculous self-promotion. Jim62sch 02:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Riiiiiiight. --Jason Gastrich 07:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Your comments to those that oppose keeping this and your emails to those who will likely side with your views really shows your character. You are not right and thus only way you get people to support you is to a play the religious martyr role--- which many people don't buy. Arbustoo 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually they already appear on the Louisiana Baptist University page. I don't really see why people are talking about keeping the names page (they are already on the article page) or merge. Arbustoo 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You don't see why people are talking about keeping the names page? That's what this nomination is about! Furthermore, there are 68 other "names pages" like it for various universities. They haven't been merged with their university. --Jason Gastrich 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
How many times are you going to post you abstain. Arbustoo 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I hope something is going to be done about this ballot stuffing. Arbustoo 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 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 04:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...
    • Dude, it's not a Christians vs. the Detroit Lions situation. I'm an atheist (because I reject Christ's far-left socialist teachings)--I want to keep it because anything that actually exists is worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 15:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly my point. This shouldn't be about religion, only about what's best for wikipedia... Spawn Man 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

See: XIV - Wiggins 2

See: XV - Mote, beam, etc

I think the reason this has gotten so blown up is because Jason recruted help by emailing inclusionists. Deletionists did the same thing as well. Really, let's keep this between the two camps and not bring the gods into this! Factions are killing wikipedia. Brokenfrog
Anti-factionalist fearmongering ;-) Ruby 03:06, 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.