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 --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

---

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)[reply]

---

• Rebuttal: Everything above was posted 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 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Director of a redlinked institution, editor of a redlinked magazine, graduate of an unaccredited university, reported to have broadcast to an audience of 250,000 (which is too small to sustain a programme on a British terrestrial network, and does not even indicate if it was the network or the programme's viewing figures - this could be garden-shed cable). One of a numebr of vastly important people whose existence had not been doucmented prior to the creation of a list of alumni for Louisiana Baptist University, an unaccredited colege with which the article's creator is associated. Article resorts to high school trivia. Oh, just read it, you'll see what I mean. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 01:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Very notable figure. --Jason Gastrich 01:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable vanity gastrich-cruft from a holder of a fake pHd from a diploma mill.Blnguyen 02:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley 03:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I should have nominated this one a few days ago with the others: a Google test reveals mostly stuff about a tech guy of the same name. A.J.A. 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. - WarriorScribe 06:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Marginally notable. Logophile 07:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehhhh. Like the nomination says, it has to resort to some pretty obscure stuff to even make him stand out at all. KrazyCaley 07:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per well-reasoned nom. This is almost borderline db-bio since nothing in the article asserts sufficient importance. Zunaid 08:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. I note this article's weaselling: "is read in 14" countries could easily mean a total of 14 people of different nationalities read it, etc.. Sliggy 13:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JzG and Blngyuen --Deiz 13:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some of these Gastrich articles I've voted to keep, but this one doesn't meet the WP:Bio criteria. Contrary to the nomination, I don't think the fact that he graduated from an unaccredited university matters for his notability. The problem is that he hasn't done enough to make him recognizable outside his circle. Publishing booklets isn't the same as publishing books. --Thunk 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nomination. --kingboyk 15:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Harvestdancer 17:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Per Thunk, however I lean towards inclusion. Wynler 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see little reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JzG. PJM 17:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NN Grimm 18:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete <300 Relevent Ghits MNewnham 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nominator, in line with Thunk's reasoning. Hall Monitor 21:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Spondoolicks 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep "with a listening audience of 250,000 people" I think that clearly qualifies as notablility.the1physicist 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Someone verify this claim. Does this make the stock-market-report guy on the 11.30pm news notable?Blnguyen 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Of course. If someone can prove the 250K figure is significantly inaccurate, let me know and I will reconsider my vote.the1physicist 14:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. --Pierremenard 05:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. I can't find anything on "Spirit of Prophecy" magazine. (There should be a weblink about it in the article anyway.) Furthermore, 250,000 people listen to him... On what show? It doesn't say. The burden of proof falls on the article editors and those who would wish to keep the article. I voted "Weak Keep" on the last Gastrich article, but this one is almost totally unverifiable. Grandmasterka 21:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete with preference to merge. Un notable, but would be great if he's merged....Further Note: 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 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]

Very Stong Delete. Unnotable does not meet Wikipedia standards of notabilty for article. Arbustoo 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unless those TV channels were major ones. - Hahnchen 01:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.