Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination)

message: why not keep it in? what other university list are you deleting??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.0.86 (talk • contribs) 
*Well, many reasons for not keeping it in had been given in the discussion, until you removed most of them . This is considered vandalism. Don't do it again. --Malthusian (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial comments 

message: This AfD process has been further disrupted by a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich, Wiggins2.  See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyde (talk • contribs) .
----
As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiggins asked people to vote. He didn't tell them how to vote. It's sad that you accuse me of having a sockpuppet when Wiggie simply happens to be of the same mind. Many Christian people think alike. --Jason Gastrich 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Solicitation is never a good idea. Besides, though I am not Atheist, I can simply look up a bunch of Atheist people in Wikipedia and solicit them to vote to delete this article. Wiggins behaves the exact same way as you do, and the edits on that account are mostly only about this article and other articles related to Jason Gastrich. Pretty blatant, eh? I would have already filed a RfC, but the paperwork is too tedious. SycthosTalk 06:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I 

message: :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. David D. (Talk) 21:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I actively try and get people to come and be a part of the Wikipedia community. I don't want anyone to ever come, vote, and leave. This is obvious from the verbiage on my organization's web site . --Jason Gastrich 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. David D. (Talk) 22:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  A.J.A. 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So we can keep this on topic, I'll reply to you on your talk page. --Jason Gastrich 07:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. Mark K. Bilbo 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  V 

message: ::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 Wikipedia, please see our site!
::Sincerely,
::Jason Gastrich
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. Ginar 16:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. Ginar 16:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't have it both ways though.  When the "Wiki4Christ" or whatever club goes out and solicits votes it's "campaigning".  But if I were to go out and solicit votes for deletion I would get accused by Jason Gastrich and others of being some sort of evil atheist censorship cabal.  I find the hypocrisy in this AfD alarming.  And if you'll look below you'll see that meat puppetry is starting to have some success ... look at those various keep votes from users with hardly any edits.  --Cyde Weys 23:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see campaining for the delete side as a bad thing either. And I'm seeing a lot of hypocrisy on both sides. You know, both sides are adopting a "holier than the other guy" the "other side is evil" stance. Can't you see it?   I'm abstaining from these votes because I think both sides really need to take an objective look at their actions and commentsGinar 18:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't start crying now. And try to keep the users religious views out of this. Wikipedia is for everyone, not your elite cadre of people with no life and +10 000 edits. Everyone can vote. Also, this is an encyclopedia, not a gaming club. Use english, not made up words like "meat puppet" (what is that?). Itake 23:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, the term "meatpuppet" appears in the official policy document WP:SOCK. It wasn't just made up on the spur of the moment. Mark K. Bilbo 00:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XII 

message: **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 Wikipedia into martyred Christians and the atheist cabal. 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. --Malthusian (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice, but very silly rant. What was the point? Itake 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. David D. (Talk) 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither is being an ass. The last time I participated in an AfD has very little to do this. Itake 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Malthusian is wrong? David D. (Talk) 19:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. Itake 19:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From you that comes as a compliment. Gastrich has been e-mailing Christian contributers in wikipedia.  Since your info boxes are supportive of his position it is likely you would have received one.  If that is not the case I apolgise for the presumption.  Others have said that that is the reason they are here  . David D. (Talk) 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XIII 

message: * Comment: How can you justify putting something that is still under discussion and something that hasn't gone beyond the status of "suspected" at the top of the page? That is OBVIOUS POV and should not be tolerated. Putting it somewhere in this crumb text would be okay, but putting it at the top makes it look like a fact and obviously influences other users. This concerns this page aswell as the other LBU-related AfD. Itake 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right. It was all done to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mote, beam, etc. The person whose integrity has suffered most is you, for ineptly using a sockpuppet to recruit votes. The warning wouldn't be necessary if you hadn't attempted to disrupt conensus. --Malthusian (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again with the lies, again with stating suspicions as a facts. Can ANYONE provide a good argument for why the intro should stay? Itake 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "warning" template  is used to resist the power of campaigning. While you, Jason, refuse to admit that you were "campaigning," you released obvious implicit statements that you wish the readers of your "copy and paste" comments to "vote" to keep the article. The boilerplate template, if seen by the target of your "campaigning," might be persuaded to abstain from voting. It is a fair tactic against the party using campaigning without soliciting votes ourselves. Likewise, if we ever decide to solicit votes (we never will), the message will undermine our campaign as well. SycthosTalk 05:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read AfD a bit, you'll see that template is very frequently used in situations where lots of new users or non-frequenters of AfD show up. Such people often are a little unclear on what AfD is all about, and the template and others like it are used to clarify the rules about sockpuppets, that AfD contributions aren't really votes, etc. It's not some piece of trickery cooked up to deny Gastrich a win, it's just a standard tool in the arsenal of an AfD. There's no conspiracy at work here. rodii 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XV 

message: For the record, the AfD closure was summarized as below:
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)
replies: text: Says who? From what I understood, you needed a concensus to delete it. And there DEFINENTLY is no concensus here. Itake 21:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. From what I've seen (even from this very same editor), he could have said the result was "no consensus". I'd like to know why he didn't say that like he did with some other entries he recently closed and kept. --Jason Gastrich 04:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say 75% of the votes being for either delete or merge would constitute a consensus here. Grimm Talk
Face it: you guys "lost" (in the sense that the article was determined by the majority of Wikipedia users to be non-notable).  Get over it and fight another battle some other day.  --Cyde Weys 05:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post AfD closure comments