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

Revision as of 04:25, 22 January 2006

Latest revision as of 23:25, 30 April 2022

(63 intermediate revisions by 36 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;">

===[[List of Louisiana Baptist University people]]===

:''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 [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="AfdAnon" style="{{divstylered}}">

<!--

{| <!-- this is {{AfdAnons}} - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/Template:AfdAnons -->

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 [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

|[[Image:Nuvola_apps_important.png|60px]]

|&nbsp;

|<big>'''ATTENTION!'''</big>

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is ''not a vote'' on whether or not this article is deleted. Despite what you may have been told, it is '''not true''' that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

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;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]][[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C">ng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

===[[List of Louisiana Baptist University people]]===

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|policies and guidelines]]. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made purely upon weight of numbers.

'''Note - this page has been refactored. Comments have been moved to the talk page'''

|}</div>

Please try to stay on-topic and focus on the article and the contributions. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<span style="color:#2f4f4f;">brenneman</span>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t)</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)</sup>]] 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC) <br/>

'''This AfD process has been further disrupted by a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich, [[User:Wiggins2|Wiggins2]]. See his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wiggins2 contributions]: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.'''

''See: [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29#I|I - Puppetry and RfC discussion]]''<br/>

List of mostly non-notable people connected (sometimes loosely) with a diploma mill attended by the originator of the article. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 02:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 02:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Strong keep'''. This list is like other university lists [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_people_by_university_affiliation_-_USA] on Wikipedia. Helpful and informative. --[[User:Jason Gastrich|Jason Gastrich]] 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

''See: [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29#II|II - Accrediatation discussion]]''<br/>

::'''Comment''' Gastrich would be the article originator who attends the mill in question. The [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people|original nomination]], BTW, was removed for not being properly listed and never recieved the full vote or discussion. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 02:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:::'''Comment''': The accusations that [[Louisiana Baptist University]] 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. --[[User:Jason Gastrich|Jason Gastrich]] 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). [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 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 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Louisiana_Baptist_University#An_administrator_says.2C_it.27s_.22a_weasle_term.22]]. So, with all due respect, if you close your eyes, you can see nothing quite clearly. --[[User:Jason Gastrich|Jason Gastrich]] 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. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 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)[http://groups.google.com/group/Malebogecom?lnk=srg&hl=en]. Don't be so quick to take his word as gospel. --[[User:Jason Gastrich|Jason Gastrich]] 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:

::::::::** [http://groups.google.com/group/maleboge/msg/3eb254172de05e11 1]

::::::::** [http://groups.google.com/group/maleboge/msg/693ad0ed04dea382 2]

::::::::** [http://groups.google.com/group/maleboge/msg/749176668ceb7772 3]

::::::::** [http://groups.google.com/group/maleboge/msg/436a5fd61821c0eb 4]

::::::::** [http://groups.google.com/group/maleboge/msg/968081319e747382 5]

::::::::** [http://groups.google.com/group/maleboge/msg/12fb84214bb7069c 6]

::::::::** [http://groups.google.com/group/maleboge/msg/7809375f126f664a 7]

::::::::** [http://groups.google.com/group/maleboge/msg/67dc5c36ff02810e 8]

::::::::** [http://groups.google.com/group/maleboge/msg/15986ac2c0552902 9]

::::::::** ... 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. - [[User:WarriorScribe|WarriorScribe]] 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 [[Skeptic's Annotated Bible]] 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. - [[User:WarriorScribe|WarriorScribe]] 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? --[[User:Jason Gastrich|Jason Gastrich]] 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. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 06:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::::* To find out what ''Gastrich'' thinks Jesus would do, consult [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Icj_tlc/Archive1#Continued_from_my_User_Page this] 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. - [[User:WarriorScribe|WarriorScribe]] 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. - [[User:WarriorScribe|WarriorScribe]] 07:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny Gastrich didn't mention [[Steve Levicoff]] 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. [http://levicoff.tripod.com/]

: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. --[[User:Jason Gastrich|Jason Gastrich]] 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). -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 02:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep.''' List of notable people connected with a wonderful school.--[[User:Hvnhlpr|Hvnhlpr]] 03:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Line 65 ⟶ 21:

*'''Merge''' into [[Louisiana Baptist University]]. 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 Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT]] a directory ("indiscriminate collection of information"). [[User:Sycthos|Sycthos]][[User talk:Sycthos|^Talk]] 03:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

**'''Delete''' if merging is not possible. [[User:Sycthos|Sycthos]][[User talk:Sycthos|^Talk]] 02:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' Notable school. But may I suggest renaming it? — [[User:SWD316Moe Epsilon|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#FF0000;">SM</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#EE0000;" >Wo</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#DD0000;">De</font><font color="CC0000">3</font><font color="BB0000">1</font><font color="AA0000">6</fontspan>]] ^{[[User talk:SWD316Moe Epsilon|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#0000FF;">talk to mε</fontspan>]]}^{[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="00FF00">e</font>]]} 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

**The school itself already has an article. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:::This is irrelvant. As it has been shown, 60 universities have entries '''and''' a list of people. --[[User:Jason Gastrich|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. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 22:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

* <s>'''Merge''' as per Scythos</s> *'''Delete''' [[User:Dlyons493|<FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#00FF00;">Dl</FONTspan><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#44FF00;">yo</FONTspan><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#99DD11;">ns</FONTspan><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#DDDD11;">493</FONTspan>]] [[User_talk:Dlyons493|<FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#DDDD11;">Ta</FONTspan><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#00FF00;">lk</FONTspan>]] 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Strong Delete''' Non-notable school, school has an entry at Wikipedia, superficially padded list of persons, mostly of little or no notability. Not helpful or informative, a space waster - [[User:WarriorScribe|WarriorScribe]] 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nomination. Are these types of lists even used for accredited universities? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unnotable people. If there are any notables put them on the university page. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Line 76 ⟶ 32:

:::I know. It's a good thing and par for the course on Wikipedia. There isn't an unaccredited category specifically for lists right now. You can create one if you like. --[[User:Jason Gastrich|Jason Gastrich]] 05:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Strong Keep''' This is a great list. LBU is a great university with many impressive grads.--[[User:God's child|God&#39;s child]] 06:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

''See: [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29#III|III - User has nine edits]]''<br/>

::'''note:''' to date, this user has nine edits. Four on Afd's related to Jason Gastrich. Amazingly this new user found the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people&diff=prev&oldid=34994086 first nomination] that was not even listed in Afd. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 06:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::: that is something to be asked on [[wp:rfcu]] for an answer [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 06:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:::'''comment''' This wouldn't be the first time Gastrich has tried to astroturf an AfD vote. [[User:Markkbilbo|Mark K. Bilbo]] 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''keep''' please this list is informative and too big to put on the main article [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 06:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' [[User_talk:California12#Anti-Christian_nominations_for_deletion|An attempt at vote-stacking]]. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 06:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Merge''' into [[Louisiana Baptist University]]. [[User:Logophile|Logophile]] 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 [[Louisiana Baptist University|main article]]. [[User:TupsharruUppland|Tupsharruu p p l a n d]] 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. --[[User:Last_Malthusian|Malthusian]] <small>[[User_talk:Last_Malthusian|(talk)]]</small> 09:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''weak keep''' could do with renaming "List of notable alumni" or something like that. [[User:Jcuk|Jcuk]] 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' article as nn list of mostly nn people. [[WP:NOT]] 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. [[User:Zunaid|Zunaid]] 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--[[User:Michaelwmoss|Michaelwmoss]] 17:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

''See: [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29#IV|IV - Rights]]''<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. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::'''comment:''' This "user" needs to brush up on what a "constitutional right" actually is. [[User:Markkbilbo|Mark K. Bilbo]] 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. -[[User:Harvestdancer|Harvestdancer]] 17:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Merge''' if not delete. [[User:Markkbilbo|Mark K. Bilbo]] 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. '''[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]''' [[Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool|<fontspan style="background: #000000"; face="font-family:Impact"; color=":#00a5ff;">[[Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool|2M-VOTE]]</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 [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:207.200.116.196|207.200.116.196]] ([[User talk:207.200.116.196|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/207.200.116.196|contribs]]) {{{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. --'''[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]''' [[Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool|<fontspan style="background: #000000"; face="font-family:Impact"; color=":#00a5ff;">[[Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool|2M-VOTE]]</fontspan>]] 20:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' or Merge with main article. [[User:The Grimm Ripper|Grimm]] 20:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' More vote-stacking: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hall_Monitor#10_Christian_biographies_nominated_for_deletion] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hvnhlpr] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SWD316#10_Christian_biographies_nominated_for_deletion] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:God%27s_child] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michaelwmoss] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yuckfoo#10_Christian_biographies_nominated_for_deletion] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaysuschris]. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 22:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Line 104 ⟶ 57:

:There's nothing vote stacking or wrong with encouraging people to vote. --[[User:Jason Gastrich|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? [[User:Markkbilbo|Mark K. Bilbo]] 14:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' categorize if you ''have'' to <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] ^{<font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font>span | <font colorstyle="color:#0033FF6BA800;">T</span>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font>span | <font colorstyle="color:#FF00000033FF;">@</span>]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|<span style="color:#FF0000;">C]]</fontspan>]]}</small> 01:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. Vanity piece by Gastrich and co-agents of LBU diploma mill nonsense.[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] 01:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nom --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 03:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Line 123 ⟶ 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. [[User:Jazzscrub|Jazzscrub]] 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. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 21:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

''See: [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29#V|V - Paranoia]]''<br/>

::'''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 [http://wiki4christ.com]. --[[User:Jason Gastrich|Jason Gastrich]] 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. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 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. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::So we can keep this on topic, I'll reply to you on your talk page. --[[User:Jason Gastrich|Jason Gastrich]] 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. [[User:Markkbilbo|Mark K. Bilbo]] 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Strong Keep''' university-related topics are notable. [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 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. --[[User:Cyde|<fontspan style="background: #000000"; face="font-family:Impact"; color=":#00a5ff00A5FF;">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</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 [[Invisible Pink Unicorn]] article. [[User:Bcatt|bcatt]] 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Merge''' any actual notables into the university article, otherwise '''delete'''. --[[User:Devein|Devein]] 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Line 146 ⟶ 95:

::::The search isn't working on my computer, but [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402413.html this article] states that Bob Jones University has recieved accreditation. [[User:Sycthos|Sycthos]][[User talk:Sycthos|^Talk]] 02:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::To be exact, they have candidacy status [http://www.tracs.org/candidate.htm], 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.) [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 03:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

*Well, we could ''first'' remove anything from this list that wasn't [[WP:V]]erifiable from [[Wikipedia: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]]. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#2f4f4f;">brenneman</fontspan>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<fontsup colorstyle="color:#2f4f4f;">^(t)</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<fontsup colorstyle="color:#2f4f4f;">^(c)</font>]] 02:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment:''' According to a [[google test]], [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Bob+Jones+University%22&btnG=Google+Search Bob Jones University] has 1,010,000 results, while [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Louisiana+Baptist+University%22&btnG=Google+Search Louisiana Baptist University] only has 782. Bob Jones University is clearly more notable than Louisiana Baptist University, so that is a different case. [[User:Sycthos|Sycthos]][[User talk:Sycthos|^Talk]] 02:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

:Google isn't the only indicator of notablity. --[[User:Jason Gastrich|Jason Gastrich]] 02:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Line 155 ⟶ 104:

* '''Merge''' into [[Louisiana Baptist University]]. [[User:Alphax|Alphax]]&nbsp;<sup >[[User talk:Alphax|&tau;]][[Special:Emailuser/Alphax|&epsilon;]][[Special:Contributions/Alphax|&chi;]]</sup > 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. [[User:Rogue 9|Rogue 9]] 10:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Merge'''. Useful content, but doesn't need to stand in an article of its own. --[[User:StuffOfInterest|StuffOfInterest]] 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. --[[User:StuffOfInterest|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) [[User:Greatgavini|The Great Gavini]] <sup>[[User talk:Greatgavini|<font face="Paris" font size=6>lobster telephone</font>]]

* '''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) [[User:Greatgavini|The Great Gavini]] [[User talk:Greatgavini|lobster telephone]]

* '''Keep'''. Useful content is useful content; keep it around. [[User:Kerobaros|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)

**This is ''not'' a discussion about the article on [[Louisiana Baptist University]] (which is not a public institution). That article has ''not'' been nominated for deletion. This is only about the list called [[List of Louisiana Baptist University people]]. BTW, there is an article on [[diploma mill]]. [[User:TupsharruUppland|Tupsharruu p p l a n d]] 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

* '''keeep''' I think it can be notable and it is interesting. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 22:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Line 176 ⟶ 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. [[User:Itake|Itake]] 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --[[User:Cyde|<fontspan style="background: #000000"; face="font-family:Impact"; color=":#00a5ff00A5FF;">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</fontspan>]] 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

----

''See: [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29#XII|XII - Email]]''<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 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. [[User:Ginar|Ginar]] 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. [[User:Ginar|Ginar]] 16:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

::::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. --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 23:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::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 comments[[User:Ginar|Ginar]] 18:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

::::: 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?). [[User:Itake|Itake]] 23:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Um, the term "meatpuppet" appears in the official policy document [[WP:SOCK]]. It wasn't just made up on the spur of the moment. [[User:Markkbilbo|Mark K. Bilbo]] 00:37, 21 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. [[User:Silensor|Silensor]] 16:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

''See: [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29#XIII|XIII - Bias?]]''<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 Wikipedia into martyred Christians and the atheist [[There Is No Cabal|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. --[[User:Last_Malthusian|Malthusian]] <small>[[User_talk:Last_Malthusian|(talk)]]</small> 16:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Nice, but very silly rant. What was the point? [[User:Itake|Itake]] 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. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 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. [[User:Itake|Itake]] 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 [[User:Last_Malthusian|Malthusian]] is wrong? [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 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. [[User:Itake|Itake]] 19:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::::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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThomas_Ice&diff=35858567&oldid=35854123] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29&diff=35994439&oldid=35994071]. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''', This information is valuable and should be included. Salva veritate [[User:Lerner|Lerner]] 17:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Line 234 ⟶ 140:

*'''Delete'''. List of financial transactions, in effect, and not verifiable by reasonable means short of people's receipts. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

* '''Keep''' same as above. --[[User:Yonghokim|Yonghokim]] 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;[[User:Alkivar|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#FA8605;">'''ALKIVAR'''</fontspan>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|&trade;]][[ImageFile:RadioactiveRadioactivity symbol.png|18px|]] 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. What a [[user:andrewa/MWOT|waste of time]]. The [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Baptist University|vote to delete the parent article]] was lost. (The [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people|first vote]] 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 [[ad hominem]] and other irrelevancies. (Let me pre-empt two others by saying that I am a Christian, and I have been emailed on this. See [[user:Andrewa/creed]].) 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. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Strong keep'''. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Theologist101|Theologist101]] ([[User talk:Theologist101|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Theologist101|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

Line 251 ⟶ 157:

:: 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. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbustoo]] 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''strong abstain'''. deep breaths everyone! [[User:Ginar|Ginar]] 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"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_people_by_university_affiliation_-_USA] like it for various universities. They haven't been merged with their university. --[[User:Jason Gastrich|Jason Gastrich]] 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

: How many times are you going to post you abstain. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbustoo]] 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' I hope something is going to be done about this ballot stuffing. [[User:Arbustoo|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.... [[User:Spawn Man|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. [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] 15:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*Exactly my point. This shouldn't be about religion, only about what's best for wikipedia... [[User:Spawn Man|Spawn Man]] 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

''See: [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29#XIV|XIV - Wiggins 2]]''<br/>

*'''Keep''' The subjects of the article clearly exist. [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] 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. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid">&nbsp;Guy,</span> you know?]] ^{[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]}/_{[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]} [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. Unencyclopedic list. Vote stacking attempt leaves a bad taste in my mouth. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] | ^{[[User_talk:Blu Aardvark|(talk)]] | [[special:contributions/Blu Aardvark|(contribs)]]} 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. [[User:Crunch|Crunch]] 16:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' - Yes I was found this all by myself - Keep this per Kurt.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per [[User:Crunch|Crunch]]. [[User:Rodii|rodii]] 19:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per [[User:Crunch|Crunch]]. --[[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

''See: [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29#XV|XV - Mote, beam, etc]]''<br/>

*'''Keep''' Stop hating on anyone with religion. [[User:Swatjester|Swatjester]] 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. [[User:Brokenfrog|Brokenfrog]]

:::Anti-factionalist fearmongering ;-) [[User:Endomion|Ruby]] 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' Indicate they are LBU alumni on each person's biographical article. [[User:Endomion|Ruby]] 03:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' LBU may be a [[diploma mill]], but nonetheless there are a number of "graduates" who have articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. I might agree to a policy to delete all of the "X university people" lists as [[WP:ENC|unencyclopedic]], but I see no reason to single this one out. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 03:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' - while a diploma mill might have some notability, the people associated with it -- not so much.--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] 08:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''', per nom.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 08:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''', per nom. &mdash; '''''[[User:Freakofnurture/|<font color="006000" title="User:Freakofnurture">F<small>REAK OF</small> N<small>UR_xTURE</small></font>]]'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User talk:Freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} <font color="006000" title="User talk:Freakofnurture">TALK</font>]</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. [[User:Mangojuice|Mangojuice]] 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. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</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 [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

==Wiggins2==

Click the link and learn [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Wiggins2] [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a new section. I have a wimpy browser that won't load the whole thing into the textbox and I've had something I wanted to say. [[User:Ginar]] wrote:

:"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."

The fact is, you couldn't. Most aren't notable at all, and most (like 99%) notable Baptists have nothing to do with the place. As for LBU being a starting point for the history of baptist thinking, I'm insulted. I mean that seriously. You think ''that's'' all we've managed to come up with?

The article is worthless for both uses you suggested it could have. It's not only non-notable, it's presence, by claiming notability it doesn't have, is positively misleading. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:I think fundamentalists are weird and really misguided but I really think that you're overreacting. The university is not a diploma mill. I get advertistments from diploma mills and this one isn't of the same genre. It is simply non-accredited and their is precedent for institutions avoiding government accreditation because of the restrictions that come with that. Now would I hire a graduate from this school? no. but that doesn't mean the school isn't notable. If it has thousands of graduates and it graduates go on to publish stuff, its notable.

:As far as the rest of the people on the page, clearly most of them probably don't deserve to be on the page and really the page should me merged with something else -- not enough content. But I think the data deserves to be here regardless of how questionable the tactics of the author are and I really think that those of you pushing so hard to remove this data are as biased as the author of the articles. You are just biased in another way. The problem here is your particular bias carries with it the aura of objectivity (cause your defending accreditation and all the other "holy above holy" academic stuff) but its not. Its bias pure and simple.

:nothing is lost by leaving a portion of this data here (merging). Just note the university is not state accredited (and any other qualifiers you want to add) and let the readers decide for themselves. Its ridiculous to try and purge the wiktionary of all this stuff. Fact is, fundamentalism is a big deal in the US and it should be represented in this WIKI.

:oh, and I '''abstain''' from voting. I hope that gives at least one person severe chestpains tonight. :-) [[User:Ginar|Ginar]] 04:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)