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 This is in conclusion after looking at some of the behavior, and because of a 62% vote to delete (even without discounted votes). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morey[edit]

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 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted by an anon via Articles for Creation. Serious problems with NPOV, several dubious claims and rebuttals, but no actual indication of why the hell we should care who this guy is. The section arguing about the legitimacy of his claimed doctorates is far and away the most interesting part ofg the article,and that only to see just how POV it can get before someone steps in and speedies it as an attack. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 01:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable - Amazon won't even gift-wrap The Trinity: Evidence And Issues. Dlyons493 Talk 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. I haven't said lol in some time. Nonetheless, I find your criteria for inclusion quite amusing! --Jason Gastrich 07:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much more notable than the Ali Sina types. NPOVing is important though, sorry if my keep vote gives anyone more work. gren グレン ^? 02:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one I probably should've nominated a few days ago. A.J.A. 03:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right . . . because you're the Christian who wants to get rid of Christian entries on Wikipedia; even obvious keepers like Thomas Ice and Grant Jeffrey. Makes sense to people from outer space. --Jason Gastrich 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He wants to keep relevant and notable Christian entries. The debate is the relevance and notability of the subject, not whether or not the A.J.A. is attacking "christian articles". -Harvestdancer 17:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, if I were more concerned with promoting Christianity I would've voted to delete the Gothard article. A.J.A. 20:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, someone nominated Gothard for deletion. They must have been sniffing the same glue that the guy was sniffing who nominated Grant Jeffrey and Thomas Ice for deletion . . . just kidding. Kinda. --Jason Gastrich 07:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We don't delete because an anon submitted an article, or because of POV problems. He certainly seems to be of interest to some people. Logophile 07:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What exactly is this guy notable for? NOTHING in the article seems like really encyclopedic info. Zunaid 09:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable figure with plenty of interesting, encyclopedic information that indicates he is notable. --Jason Gastrich 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep published author, referenced -- Astrokey44|talk 11:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable over-claiming preacher. Sliggy 13:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article still has a lot of POV, but some attempts are being made to offer balance and criticism. Seems to be part of a concerted campaign by a few editors to censor out a particular community. --StuffOfInterest 13:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep, or perhaps merge to a larger Faith Defenders article. --badlydrawnjeff 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --kingboyk 15:08, 20 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 02:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable charlatan, with self-awarded-and-styled diploma mill degrees, of no academic worthiness and none relevant to poltics/theology overlap. Blnguyen 04:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should part of this biography be blended into an article about California Biblical University and Seminary? Arbustoo 06:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Good job, this one actually has some citations. LBU "alumni": 4 "Weak Keep", 2 "Delete". Grandmasterka 21:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG, Gastrichcruft. Stifle 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I agree...the way we keep having to accommodate for people of questionable credentials (and questionable morals) is troublesome for Wikipedia. - WarriorScribe 01:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cyde Weys 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since it looks like this article is going to be deleted, I created an article about Morey's California Biblical University and Seminary Is this okay with everyone? Comments? Arbustoo 03:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he's writen stuff then he should at least have a little slice of wikipedia? I mean, Wikipedia is huge, everyone can have a share can't they? Everyone thinks that because he isn't in the news, that he shouldn't be included in wikipedia, the so called "sum of all human knowledge". But how do we know he isn't influencial? He effects hundreds with his words..... 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 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]
Delete - The problem with this is the lack of information given about his notability. Who published his "works"? Self published? Vanity press? I mean, how can you receive a phd in Islamic Studies from the Louisiana Baptist University? - Hahnchen 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is extensively cited and recent edits seem to help move it towards WP:NPOV. His works may be specialized, but I don't think it sets a good precedent to delete published authors because of the fields they write in. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merge with California Biblical University. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FeloniousMonk 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC) More Gastrichcruft[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.