Talk:List of Bob Jones University people

Chris Sligh
Appearing on American Idol after being expelled from BJU doesn't make one notable--not even in Greenville, although there was a short piece on him this week in the Greenville News that didn't mention BJU. Sligh is certainly no "rock star." Someone said of Zsa Zsa Gabor that she was famous for being famous. Wait a bit; if Sligh survives on American Idol, he may become "notable," at least by the Zha Zha Gabor standard.--John Foxe 14:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris Sligh's former affiliation with the university was mentioned repeatedly by Greenville's Fox station and WHNS. It also merited an hour's worth of discussion on the SC Upstate's most popular talk radio program, the Ralph Bristol Show. A review of American Idol commentators shows that Chris is the current favorite, and the judges' comments late last year indicate that Sligh has made a significant impression on them, as well. But I agree, we can wait until at least after Hollywood. ExpectantCloisterance 22:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the name again. If and when he becomes notable enough for a Wikipedia article we can re-add him. -Will Beback · † · 02:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that a gay porno star can remain as a notable non-graduate but a talented young man who is definately notable (whether he wins or not..he's already made his mark on the US and you can't argue with that) to a number of people is constantly deleted. Surely the fact that in the last 24 hours at least 5 people have tried to add him to the list is enough to convince you that he's noteworthy. ge


 * There's no indication that the five accounts were differnt people. The porn star is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Create one for the singer and we'll have an outside judgment on his notability. Please don't not keep adding his name until that happens. -Will Beback · † · 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in the process of creating a page for Chris Sligh (and it will be a longer process, because I do want to do both Sligh and Wiki justice by creating something readable and worthy of posting), but since he's made it past Hollywood, I do think it is reasonable to add and keep him on the notable non-grads list. -mhgood 23:13 13 February 2007


 * I'm not sure what it means to "make it past Hollywood". To my view, even making it to the final 12 of season 6 of American Idol doesn't necessarily make one notable. Being noted makes one notable. In any case, let's see how the overall Wikipedia community views the notability of Sligh. But unless an article is forthcoming we should remove the entry again. -Will Beback · † · 07:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are other venues for a Chris Sligh fan club; those so inclined should make use of them.--John Foxe 11:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Sligh has indeed progressed into the semi-finals, and news searches of his name are becoming increasingly more fruitful, as he has achieved a sort of underdog appeal. Given his national recognition, which has exceeded that of certain other persons on the non-grad list, perhaps his inclusion should be considered. However, "Chris Sligh-American Idol for the 2007 season" is a poor and misleading description, so I have removed it until this issue can be resolved. I do believe his name should be on this page, though. 74.242.72.151 22:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A rough standard for Wikipedia "notability" seems to be whether or not a Wikipedia article about the individual can survive an AfD test. There's no Wikipedia article on Sligh at this moment, and I'm determined to keep his name off this page until such an article appears and can weather the AfD test.--John Foxe 23:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe: I'm fascinated! Apparently you are blessed with an all knowing sense of what is fact and what is mere opinion. Isn't it as much a matter of opinion that you seem to think Chris is not notable? Let's examine the facts: According to MSNBC, over 25% of the nearly 16,000 people that voted think Chris is notable. Take a minute out of your obsession with Wikipedia and check out some of the many fan sites cropping up all over the internet. While I agree that subjective statements like "Chris Sligh, the totally rad future American Idol (or something like that)" should not be on a Wikipedia site, objective statements like "Chris Sligh, former student, contestant on the popular TV show American Idol, recognized by many top news sites as having exceptional talent" should be allowed. While you personally may not believe he is notable, the fact of the matter is, a good deal of America thinks he is. I personally don't find several of the people on the page notable. I spent four years of my life at the school and happen to have a good idea who from my school is notable and who is not. I don't find a porn star to be notable: I find it to be disgusting but you don't see me deleting his name. Why? Because I know that someone out there found him to be of some note, and as the statement was objective and I suppose the guy was somewhat famous, he has as much a right to be considered a notable non-graduate as the next guy. Now, I'm not sure who made you the Wiki-police, but please be aware that people will continue to add Chris as a notable non-grad so you might as well give it up and realize that you've been out opinioned. My recommendation for you?..get your panties out of a twist, log off your wiki account for once and kick back Tuesday night and vote for Chris Sligh. You might actually enjoy yourself. Your fan and avid devotee, ge


 * John Foxe, I command you to revert using popups! Just out of curiosity, where did you come up with this "rough standard for Wikipedia notability"?—Emote Talk Page 06:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My "rough standard of Wikipedia notability" arose from the long discussion above about one Charles D. Provan, a true non-entity whose educational accomplishments, career path, and publication record are less impressive than my own. The difference between Provan and Sligh is that Provan has his own article on Wikipedia that can pass an AfD challenge. Sligh has no such article.  If Sligh fans would like him to stick on this page, then they should write a Wikipedia bio that can weather an AfD challenge. Once over that hurdle, so far as I'm concerned, he's a worthy addition to the BJU page.
 * I realize that Sligh fans will keep adding his name regardless of what I say, but the BJU article is so often vandalized that I make regular stops here anyway. And popups are a great way to revert. It probably takes me a tenth of the time to revert as it does for vandals to post.--John Foxe 13:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, so it's a magically created rule. You decided one day that you just didn't like someone's name appearing on a page, so you generated some random reason for deleting him—how original. However, since Wikipedia does not have a policy that would reflect or support your own prejudices against the page, your deletions are vandalism.
 * No worries on the reverting. "Undo" is pretty quick as well.—Emote Talk Page 14:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll let the community decide which of us is the vandal.--John Foxe 14:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, let's see here. Which one of us goes around deleting good-faith edits? I refer you to the following Wikipedia policy regarding ownership of articles:
 * Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. It's one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But when this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it.
 * The amazing thing here is that you don't even have the excuse of defending your own work. You actually reject all additions to the article. At any rate, happy hounding.—Emote Talk Page 14:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that Sligh should be included on the page, but perhaps "Chris Sligh, singer, contestant on the popular TV show American Idol, gained recognition by fans all over the US as well as several major news sites for his voice and personality" is a tad gushy. ExpectantCloisterance 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dearest John Foxe: answer me just this one question: did you attend BJU? Actually I lied, I have a couple of questions. What is your obsession with the BJU page? Why are you so naturally disposed to being negative? Is there some rule on Wikipedia that anyone named under a particular article must have his or her own article? Now, I think the community has already decided who the vandal is, especially since over on facebook we're having a rip roaring time laughing at your rather OCD tendencies concerning the BJU article on Wiki. In fact, I think we might just create a fan group just for you...but forgive me, I digress. The fact of the matter still remains that we are breaking no rules by posting factual information concerning Chris Sligh. As Wikipedia is a sort of webpage for the masses, we have as much right to add Chris Sligh as whoever added Billy Graham or our dearly beloved porn star did. I have quite a few other things to say concerning you personally but I'm afraid they are far to subjective to mention in this particular venue so I'll save them for facebook. Cheers friend. I hope you have a fabulous evening. If Jack Bauer isn't notable enough to divert you from Wikipedia for an hour then I'm afraid there is no hope for you. yours, ge
 * Feel free to add Sligh to this page. Feel free to have a good laugh at my expense. I will continue to delete him until there is a Wikipedia bio that can pass the AfD test. Once over that hurdle, so far as I'm concerned, he's a worthy addition to the BJU page.--John Foxe 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's curious, John Foxe, that you seem to have a double standard for notability then. Daniel B. Verdin, Rich Merritt, and many others on the BJU page have no Wikipedia article, yet you don't remove their entries from the article. If you are willing, I would like for you to explain this apparent bias to the rest of us. Thanks for your help for those of us who may not fully understand this standard. Wikiedit2006sc 03:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: did you attend BJU? But then, I noticed you also conveniently bypassed that question on another discussion up there which means you probably don't want to admit that you have even less credibility in dealing with the Bob Jones University page than you already think you have. Stop avoiding the question Foxe: Did you attend Bob Jones University? I'll be honest with you, I'm not going to lose any sleep if Chris Sligh doesn't manage to remain on this particular site. The main reason I've even been pressing this issue is b/c of the rules you seem to create on a whim so that the BJU page can remain just as you want it to be. The reason I really want to know if you were even a student is b/c if you weren't, you really should leave the editing of this page up to people who actually know the school. If you were, I'd really like to know why you consider yourself the living expert on Bob Jones University and the sole editor of it's wiki page. This website is a public website, to be edited by the public. Like the person above me pointed out, there are others on the page without their own articles. There are others on a LOT of pages on wikipedia that don't have their own articles. There is a statement just below this box that says "encyclopedic content must be verifiable". What we have been trying to add IS verifiable...we can produce quotes from many well known news sites that by their mere existence prove the fact that Chris is notable. That, plus the fact that he is undeniably a former student of Bob Jones= notable non-graduate. Please take a good look at the reasons you are so adamant that he in particular should not remain on the site b/c they really don't jive with the basic premise of Wikipedia. You have singlehandedly decided to commandeer a bit of cyberspace that doesn't really belong to you and you need to loosen your grasp and allow other well informed people to make additions. g.e.


 * My theory is that, because he so desperately opposes Chris Sligh's association with BJU, John Foxe is either Jon Daulton, Tony Miller, or Jim Berg, heh heh. Seriously though, I have a compromise suggestion here. John Foxe claims that Chris lacks notability and therefore should not be listed as a notable former student. So let's rename the category Notable and not-so-notable former students. Or we could create a new category just for Chris: Obscure former students who have made repeated appearances on national television. You get the idea.—Emote Talk Page 04:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't have to be an associate of the school to think that Sligh is not notable. There are thousands of non-notable people who have atended BJU. The standard for notability oin Wikipedia is an article. Thus far, Slight does not merit one. I'm sure we all wish him success in his game show. -Will Beback · † · 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder if anyone would be kind enough to put this whole thing to rest by telling me where I can find the following Wikipedia policy: The standard for notability on Wikipedia is an article. My hunch is that no such standard exists but that it was conveniently created for purposes of winning this particular argument, but I could be wrong. Mr. Beback, would you please refer me to the page containing the policy? If it exists, you won't hear from me again on this issue.—Emote Talk Page 22:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Policies and guidelines reflect practice. The usual rule of thumb is that having an article establishes notability. I can point you to the policy on consensus: WP:CON. Please don't push your viewpoint onto the article. -Will Beback · † · 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If one must merit a dedicated Wikipedia article in order to appear on the list of notables, may I inquire as to why others in the same said list (Daniel B. Verdin, Rich Meritt, George Youstra, Les Olilla, the list goes on) do not seem to have their own articles. Why the double standard? If Chris Sligh's fame has surpassed the majority of the aforementioned notables, what is there preventing his inclusion in the list? Please don't bring up his lack of an article; I just refuted that argument. (Barang 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

add to the people without articles: Emery Bopp (a dearly beloved former teacher of mine who just passed away) and Mr. Koons. Both most definately notable as they have been published and had their work shown nationally and internationally. Yet still without articles. The article argument is completely invalid. Anyway, I see the solution to the problem seems to be to delete notable non grads altogether. I suppose that's one method of having the last word, however you still have several categories full of article-less people. ge
 * You have noted the difference. Koons and Bopp are "notable" by Wikipedia standards, men with significant life-time achievement. They just have not yet found a biographer. (Since you were Bopp's student, why not you?) Sligh is simply famous for being famous, one of many contestants on a TV show (and one of the most crass and pandering at that). I will continue to delete Sligh's name until there is a Wikipedia bio that can pass the AfD test. Once over that hurdle, so far as I'm concerned, Sligh will become a worthy addition to the BJU page.--John Foxe 14:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is dissappointing to see the removal of other notable non-grads over this issue. However, the wit that vandalized the list forgot to delete the other notable associates of the university that didn't have articles to their name. An article is not the standard for notability. Neither is lifetime acheivement. Check the lists of other universities and organizations if you aren't convinced. Perhaps you could delete the lists of notables there, as well. While some sympathetic to BJU (including myself) may consider Sligh's previous association with the university unfortunate in light of his actions that are now clearly opposed to BJU ideology, I believe it is time to add him to the list. He is now clearly a favorite of music critics (however crass) across the country, and it is likely that his time on American Idol will launch an extended music career. He is not famous simply for being famous; he is famous because an overwhelming number of mindless TV viewers enjoy his voice and personality. Give him that, at least. This conversation is taking up far too much space on BJU's talk page. ExpectantCloisterance 20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How hard can it be to create a Wikipedia bio for Sligh? Or is there just nothing to say?--John Foxe 22:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming there is a legitimate reason you are avoiding actual debate. Perhaps when you have more time; I can wait. ExpectantCloisterance 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * All I've asked for is a Wikipedia bio that can pass the AfD test. Once over that hurdle, so far as I'm concerned, Sligh will be a worthy addition to the BJU page. There are dreadful Wiki bios out there that have survived AfD.  As the unlamented Joe McCarthy once said, "Find out what the editor wants and get it to him when he wants it.  It doesn't have to be very good."--John Foxe 23:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * McCarthy was unlamented for a reason. What you have or have not asked for is immaterial to the issue of notability. An article is not required. But congratulations, you've earned "ownership" of this article by merit of your obstinacy, if not powers of persuasion. I'll not bother you again. However, if your ultimate goal is to improve the public image of BJU, be mindful that the above dialogue did little to accomplish this. ExpectantCloisterance 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still a little in the dark as to John Foxe's affiliation with Bob Jones University. In the above post he implies editorialship of this article. By what mandate is he the sole editor and authority on this article? I mean, removing other names under the Notable Graduates so the notability argument will stand up? (Barang 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
 * I do not "own" this article. I do not believe that my actions in resisting the inclusion of Chris Sligh's name will in any way improve the public image of BJU. (The reverse is more likely.) I believe in the rules of Wikipedia and will work within them.
 * Nevertheless, I will use all my obstructive powers to prevent the inclusion of Chris Sligh's name here until he has a proper Wiki bio. All I've asked for is a Wikipedia bio that can pass the AfD test. Once over that hurdle, so far as I'm concerned, Sligh will be a worthy addition to the BJU page.
 * Here's the scenario. You write a bio for Sligh.  I'll slap an AfD tag on it and propose deletion.  You gather a group of like minded folks to vote "keep." I'll lose by an overwhelming margin. Sligh has his Wiki bio.  I will no longer obstruct his name being listed here. The End.--John Foxe 11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Or how about this also… You change you registered name to one that is not in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy, which you piously proclaim to hold so dear. You continue to demand recognition and adherence to YOUR laws of “AfD tested bios” but have failed to justify your credibility by not stating the laws as prescribed by Wikipedia. You are the one guilty of bias, subjectivity, and non-neutrality demonstrated by your continuing deletions of Sligh’s simplest entries that are little more than his name. Your obstinacy over time has been the catalyst for more than one of these types of episodes, motivating some to abandon the Wikipedia altogether. For all those following this discussion, I submit to you the assessment of CyberAnth as previous casualty of John Foxe personal vendetta war against for his own personal worldviews and ideologies. Read the above debates. Even peruse the archived debates and be educated on the “neutral, good-faith assuming” positions that John Foxe has taken… Ok that was a wee bit sarcastic. I’m reminded too that this should not become personal, and yet how is declaring another person “crass and pandering” not a personal affront? Yet again demonstrating JF’s personal agenda which has diseased this forum long enough. Do we leave and go elsewhere, leaving Foxe to his skulking undermining of our alma mater’s page here? Do we give him the masochistic satisfaction that he is some kind of “martyr” in his enduring of such persecution? I haven’t decided. But one thing is for sure John Foxe has shown his penchant for hypocrisy in his very name. Here is Wikipedia law sir… “Your username must not contain: -names of celebrities, notable world figures or events, or known Wikipedians” But I guess your authority to redefine “notable” transcends even this rule. Oh but please, by all means recite your mantra again regarding a bio and AfD test.FedUpWithJohnFoxe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.3.211.56 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Well said. Mr. "Foxe", perhaps the reason none of us has created a bio yet is because most of us have lives and don't have as much time on our hands as you seem to have to create bios for anyone and everyone on Wikipedia. Now I know your retort is going to be "well, you seem to have enough time to come on here and post..", and my answer to that is, quite honestly it takes about 1 minute to write a fairly decent rebuttal to your highly illogical and contradictory statements. 1. there is no rule about having to have an article 2. you have no right to be the sole editor of this page. 3. you proved by your statement that Chris was "crass and pandering" that this is no more than a personal thing for you. You quite obviously have something against Chris and it is him and him alone you don't want to see on this page (the whole article argument aside). 4. you refuse to acknowledge whether you actually attended the University and by doing so, lose credibility with the many alumnists who are taking part in this discussion. To be honest, I'm getting to the point of researching how to report you because your actions are that of a vandal, not someone dedicated to maintaining the integrity of this page. ge

Those who have been at the school in recent years, is there really any doubt in your minds as to who "John Foxe" is? I think it is blantently obvious myself. As a current student though, this has definately been an interesting read. But these are the kinds of things that make the school look foolish to people though. The One who the school is trying to reflect never ran around the world trying to be an undercover cop. His focus was solely above, and not on what people perceived Him as. I hope one day the school can focus solely in that direction, and not live being paranoid about what people think of them. Focusing on the former, takes care of the latter. Stop pointing around, point up; and watch how that takes care of your orginal problem. Jumper222 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC) word!
 * Jumper: I appreciate what you are saying but I think the point we are trying to make really has little to do with Bob Jones and even Chris Sligh at this point and more with maintaining the freedom of Wikipedia from vandals like John Foxe who feel they have ultimate power over certain articles. ge


 * Article talk pages don't exist to discuss editors - they exist to discuss articles. If you have issues with an editor please use a different setting to disucss them. The editors own talk page, a user RFC, the AN/I, mediation, or a request for arbitration are appropriate places to discuss editor behavior. Speculation on the real life identity of Wikipedia editors is highly inappropriate. -Will Beback · † · 02:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is pretty nasty. But then again, so are JohnFoxe's tactics. I can't imagine how much of his time has been consumed by this debate. Is it really worth it? JohnFoxe, you should consider this before you again delete Chris Sligh's name from the BJU wiki. Because of American Idol Chris Sligh is more famous than BJU. Yes, more people know about Chris Sligh than know about BJU. He is discussed on radio shows spanning the nation; websites around the world; even TV sets around the world. There are people in the UK who are watching American Idol this season because of Chris Sligh. These facts are more than enough reason to consider Chris Sligh 'notable.'Dsiglin 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

All I've asked for is a Wikipedia bio for Sligh that can pass the AfD test. Once over that hurdle, so far as I'm concerned, Sligh will be a worthy addition to the BJU page. Until then, no.--John Foxe 10:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Then do a wiki search for Chris sligh and you will find him in reference to the American Idol wiki page. EddieTure 13:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that's just it isn't it then... WHO CARES WHAT "YOU" ASK FOR!!! You are NOT the executive branch of Wikipedia! The one thing positive in all of this mess is that about a dozen or so people have taken it upon themselves to learn the "ins and outs" of Wikipedia as well as can be known. People that have chosen to study the site and become smartly enabled to work within its confines. The terrible thing is that the motivation for this comes from a user named JohnFoxe who has abandoned that system and continuously DEMANDS that the world of wiki recognize HIS autohity, which in reality is moot. Quote "All I've asked for..." and "so far as I'm concerned" John Foxe has actually argued against himself and won with this statement "I'll lose by an overwhelming margin." Here is the issue... is Chris Sligh "notable" enough to be listed as a "Notable student (non-gradutate)" here on the BJU page. The overwhelming majority of persons here believe so, the overwheming evidence of his appearance in the national media testifies to his notability... yet one vocal minority says no, or at least "only on MY terms." You have no legitimate terms to enforce JohnFoxe. I have requested a review of this debate by Saxifrage. Thank you for your time again and hopefully this will be resolved soon. FedUpWithJohnFoxe


 * A blurb on the American Idol page will not do. I've written two Wiki bios in two days that stand on all fours. If Sligh is so notable why couldn't someone write one for him in the last two weeks?  All I've asked for is a Wikipedia bio for Sligh that can pass the AfD test. Once over that hurdle, so far as I'm concerned, Sligh will be a worthy addition to the BJU page.  Otherwise, I refer to what Winston Churchill said at Harrow in 1941, "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense."--John Foxe 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Beware of unreasonable people. Good men are always reasonable." 65.4.191.182 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Churchill was speaking of timeless principles, not petty disputes based on contrived rules. Your approach is more reminiscent of the insanity of Hitler's order to Field Marshall Rommel at the Second Battle of El Alamein: "Do not retreat so much as one millimeter—victory or death!" If you wished to emulate Churchill, it seems like you would be more inclined to honor actual Wikipedia policies like the three-revert rule, honoring good-faith edits, and so forth.—Emote Talk Page 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand on principle only for what is just and reasonable. Within two days I've written two Wiki biographies for men who are unknown but, for purposes of Wikipedia, "notable." A Wiki bio that will pass the AfD test is needed for Sligh so that the community can judge whether he is notable or only transiently famous.  I perceive no reason why would you prefer debating this issue rather than writing such a biography.--John Foxe 12:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a sad day when we are before the Throne of God and have to give an account of how we spent the time he gave us on this forum. John Foxe: humble thyself as if you are humbling to the Lord. nobojo: God will not be mocked. EddieTure: humble thyself and trust in the Lord, let no vain or foolish talk proceed out of your mouth, but only what is eddifying... To the all:  Lets leave the pettiness that is unacceptable before the Lord. John Foxe, if you would like to be a martyr, then I suggest serving Christ in a foreign mission field where you may better serve Him then your own selfishness. EddieTure 18:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You have already promised to attempt to delete the page if it is created. Why in the world would I waste my time writing a bio when you would just throw it in the trash? The only edits you have respect for are your own. All others are subject to arbitrary and repeated deletion.—Emote Talk Page 19:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as I might wish to hand down ukases on occasion, I have neither the ability nor the desire to delete articles that you might create. That's one of the strengths of the Wikipedia idea.--John Foxe 22:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe you wouldn't happen to be that guy who got banned a while back for removing historically accurate facts about BJU because your view was they painted the university as racist even though the lines only stated facts and not editorial opinion. Whom also is on the BJU quasi administration with a title like "public relations officer" because you were pretty quick to recognize the BJU IP address. I hope you didn't get that rule made banning wiki or got a student kicked out for that comment. JP. 66.169.43.61 04:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC) BJU student for total disclosure

Notability
To continue the discussion about American Idol contestant Chris Sligh and what constitutes "notability" for this page: It is my contention that Sligh requires a Wikipedia bio that can pass the AfD test before he is listed here as a former student. The Wikipedia community needs to make the decision about whether this TV show contestant is "notable" or just fleetingly well known; and such a decision can only be made after a full biography is presented to the community for its consideration. Once over the AfD hurdle, so far as I'm concerned, Sligh would be a worthy addition to the BJU page. I might add that I have never met Sligh, never heard him sing, and have no personal animosity towards the young man.

Yes, there are people on this list who do not have Wiki bios. I have grandfathered in everyone who was on the previous list. Virtually all of these individuals (barring a couple of the donors and two or three of the state legislators) are worthy of their own Wikipedia articles. Nevertheless, there are no "former students (non-graduates)" who do not have their own Wiki bios. I believe that if would be wise to maintain that standard for this category. As a practical matter, it's easier to keep out someone's uncle or the local fruit-and-nut bar if there is a standard to which Wikipedians can appeal.--John Foxe 23:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * dude if that's not an official Wikipedia standard, then you can't single-handedly keep Sligh off...


 * “I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do.” Edward Everett Hale (1822-1909)--John Foxe 19:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your persistance in making edits that are contrary to the principles of Wikipedia is arrogant and foolish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.158.240.230 (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
 * If you feel strongly about the matter, then write a bio for Sligh that can meet Wikipedia standards. That's all I ask.
 * And please sign your posts. You're hardly anonymous when you post from the BJU IP address.--John Foxe 20:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry John Foxe, your "removed Sligh until he has a proper Wiki bio" mantra is getting old. As of March 9 Chris has a genuine, bona fide wikipedia bio. (Barang 20:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Thanks for letting me know, Barang. I've now tagged the article for deletion and put the page on my watch list.  If the Sligh article makes it through AfD, Sligh will be a worthy addition to this list.--John Foxe 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * John, I'd be interested to know what personal vendetta you have against Chris Sligh. It was been proven over and over by many sources that he truly is notable (far more so than most others on this page). What gives? When he produces a best-selling CD that tops the iTunes charts, will you continue to insist that he is un-notable? Also, I don't see you slapping an AFD notice on the other American Idol Finalists (you can find a few of them here, here, and here. Why choose Chris in particular?  (Barang 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC))
 * As I've said before, I have no personal animosity toward Sligh. My concern is with establishing a standard for measuring notability of those entered on the BJU list.  If Sligh's bio passes AfD, that's fine.  He'll be on this list. Otherwise, I stand on principle in opposition "pour encourager les autres."--John Foxe 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Approaching the end of the Chris Sligh discussion
Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. —Emote Talk Page 18:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Relax. The AfD process will be concluded shortly, and both our objectives will be achieved.--John Foxe 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition to creating arbitrary rules to serve your own causes, you show no respect for the time that people donate to Wikipedia. Countless hours and edits have been wasted battling your nonsense when you have failed to gather even a single vote that is sympathetic to your position. And even now that Sligh has an article, you reject this (arbitrary) criterion that you originally created for his appearance on the BJU list of notable people. This is exactly why I had no interest in creating a bio for him. I predicted you would do exactly this: either change your own rules or hound the article itself so that it could never develop properly. Sligh's bio has not been deleted, so you have no legitimacy for repeatedly removing him from the list. You have an average of thirteen edits per article. Perhaps it would be good for you to move on from certain articles and expand your horizons. If you need help finding a way to employ your time usefully on Wikipedia, please consider working with counter-vandalism, the welcoming committee, or any of the other important Wikipedia groups. There are plenty of ways for you to make yourself helpful rather than annoying. However, if you have no interest in being productive, please at least do not be a hindrance. If I can help you figure anything out, let me know.—Emote Talk Page 18:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not changed my position. I will not change my position, which I believe is a principled one. Here's what I said on February 22:
 * "I will use all my obstructive powers to prevent the inclusion of Chris Sligh's name here until he has a proper Wiki bio. All I've asked for is a Wikipedia bio that can pass the AfD test. Once over that hurdle, so far as I'm concerned, Sligh will be a worthy addition to the BJU page. Here's the scenario. You write a bio for Sligh. I'll slap an AfD tag on it and propose deletion. You gather a group of like minded folks to vote 'keep.' I'll lose by an overwhelming margin. Sligh has his Wiki bio. I will no longer obstruct his name being listed here. The End.--John Foxe 11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)"
 * Nevertheless, I respect your willingness to challenge me. Perhaps a dozen different folks have said unpleasant things about me in regard to this issue, but it has taken weeks for even a couple of editors to resist my stand in any concerted way.  In other words, when raising their voice once or twice didn't persuade me to change my position, they just shrugged and went back to watching American Idol. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated a level of character above that of most of your peers. Channel this energy (with a bit more patience) into a cause worth fighting for, and I predict a lifetime of useful service.--John Foxe 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And I repeat you verbatim: "until he has a proper Wiki bio." In case that is unclear, I ask you to review your edit summaries for the last month which all say something to the effect of, "removed Sligh until he has a proper Wiki bio." Well, check out the Wiki bio. See that? That's called a Wiki bio, and it belongs to Chris Sligh. You haven't been able to delete it. That means he has a Wiki bio. And you promised not to "obstruct his name being listed here." Yet you still obstruct his name from being listed here. That is called dishonest conduct. People who conduct themselves dishonestly are generally referred to as liars.


 * Yours is a principled position? Please inform of the underlying principle that you are defending, because it is completely obfuscated from my perception. Chris Sligh should not have an encyclopedia article because it violates the law of God? It violates the law of nature? It violates the rules of Wikipedia? It violates your own pride? Seriously, what's the principle at stake here?


 * I'm convinced that you don't really care whether Sligh is on the page or not. You got yourself into a small argument over this issue, and then the question escalated beyond what you expected. Lacking the humility to let anything go (however stupid or trivial it might be), you decided to fight it to the death. You get some sort of martyr-like satisfaction out of the deal as if you've wrongly suffered the oppression of the populace. The whole world wishes to silence your lone voice of truth, and your duty before God is to stand in the face of all resistance and force the world to trample down your solitary protest before it can accomplish its evil objects. I will say that it's all very noble. The problem is that it's desperately misplaced. When a man can't find a legitimate cause to defend, he must invent one. And from your invention this entire thing has descended. Well, congratulations—you have wasted an inordinate amount of time proclaiming that it is an unpardonable sin for people to add Chris Sligh's name to a list of notable people. I would, however, caution you one thing in regard to your future crusades. Before you decide to fight to the death, make sure you're on the right side of the dispute. The conscience gnaws incessantly upon the mind of a man whose cause was illegitimate.—Emote Talk Page 02:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What I am defending is a standard by which additional names can be added to the BJU list of "Former Students (Non-Graduates)." Future additions can only be personal preference unless there is a standard for inclusion, and a reasonable one is that a suggested addition have his own Wiki-bio. You are correct in assuming that I "don't really care whether Sligh is on the page or not." I don't and never have. I have been interested in establishing a standard for this list.

I have no martyr complex. I have suffered no oppression. I've won. I promised to fight the inclusion of Chris Sligh's name on this list until he had a Wikipedia bio that could pass AfD, and I've kept my word. He now has a Wiki-bio, and it will shortly pass AfD.--John Foxe 11:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Personal preference has never been the standard by which notability is determined. There's an entire Wikipedia policy page which sets forth the criteria for notability. If you browse through it, you will find that "must have own Wiki bio" is clearly omitted. So I once again point out that your cause here is misplaced. The "standard for inclusion" has long been established. Maybe what you intended to say is that you're trying to invent a new standard. You want a rule named after you or something like that. I could believe that. But it's utter nonsense to suggest that Wikipedia lacks objective standards for notability, and that you are therefore a pioneer in trying to bring the issue out from under a subjective shadow.


 * Now, let me get this straight. The principle that you defend so desperately is that a person needs a Wikipedia article before he can be listed as notable. So what's up with the whole AfD for Chris Sligh? Didn't you "win" when the article appeared? Your standard had been met, yet you still insist that his name cannot appear on the list. Explain that to me. There must be more to it than just creating your own standard and forcing everyone to abide by it, else you would not continue to delete his name. If your standard had been met and your principle upheld, what's the motivation behind the AfD?—Emote Talk Page 16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone can post a biography of anyone on Wikipedia. Every day people post bios of themselves or their friends.  Whether those biographies remain a part of the encyclopedia is a determination made by the community through the AfD process that roughly measures notability.  I'm inventing no new standard here, only applying the standard of notability necessary for biographical articles on Wikipedia to future entries on the list of "Former Students (Non-graduates)."  Basically I'm saying, "If you want to post a former BJU student here, prove that he's notable by gaining the assent of the community.  You and I may differ about this person's notability.  Let the community decide. Post a biography and we'll take it through the AfD process."--John Foxe 18:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I quote: "Basically I'm saying, 'If you want to post a former BJU student here, prove that he's notable by gaining the assent of the community. You and I may differ about this person's notability. Let the community decide. Post a biography and we'll take it through the AfD process.'" This is not your call to make. The Bob Jones University Wikipedia page does not belong to you, nor are you the sole editor-in-chief. This is a self-imposed standard, which cleaves with Wikipedia's standard. Please do not continue to enforce your own standards on Wikipedia. To do so is rude and arrogant. (Barang 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Foxe, your foolishness amazes me. The community spoke loud and clear to you by adding Chris's name over and over and over again to the BJU list. You paid no attention. The community then created an article for Chris. You tried to get it thrown in the trash. Then the community unanimously opposed your deletion proposal. Never at any time has there been doubt about "the assent of the community." Your position has been overthrown repeatedly. At any rate, I don't have time to deal with this any further. I simply warn you that if you continue to delete Sligh's name from the list, I will appeal this situation to an administrator with the intention of having you blocked. Also, if I happen to come across this sort of behavior from you on other articles, I will pursue the same goal. This is not acceptable conduct, and you must stop.—Emote Talk Page 09:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in deleting Sligh's name from the list. The community has spoken, which is what I intended from the beginning. Here's what I wrote almost a month ago. "I will use all my obstructive powers to prevent the inclusion of Chris Sligh's name here until he has a proper Wiki bio. All I've asked for is a Wikipedia bio that can pass the AfD test. Once over that hurdle, so far as I'm concerned, Sligh will be a worthy addition to the BJU page. Here's the scenario. You write a bio for Sligh. I'll slap an AfD tag on it and propose deletion. You gather a group of like minded folks to vote 'keep.' I'll lose by an overwhelming margin. Sligh has his Wiki bio. I will no longer obstruct his name being listed here. The End.--John Foxe 11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)" I am a man of my word. Nevertheless, if another person without a Wiki-bio is proposed for this list, I will follow exactly the same course as I have done in this case.--John Foxe 13:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe you wouldn't happen to be that guy who got banned a while back for removing historically accurate facts about BJU because your view was they painted the university as racist even though the lines only stated facts and not editorial opinion. Whom also is on the BJU quasi administration with a title like "public relations officer" because you were pretty quick to recognize the BJU IP address. I hope you didn't get that rule made banning wiki or got a student kicked out for that comment. JP. 66.169.43.61 04:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC) BJU student for total disclosure.


 * No, I've never been banned, I have nothing to do with administration or public relations for BJU or anybody else—I'd be terrible at both jobs as the foregoing conversation adequately demonstrates—and I have difficulty making rules for myself without trying to make them for other people. (When the BJU article has been on your watchlist for a year, it's hardly surprising to know the BJU IP address.)--John Foxe 13:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of notables without Wiki biographies
I have removed the following notables from the lists, although with every belief that these gentlemen belong on them. In my opinion, it is important that there be some objective criterion for being added to the list of "notable graduates" or "notable honorary degree recipients," especially because BJU is so controversial, and that that criterion should be a Wikipedia biography that can withstand an AFD challenge. I'll continue to watch this list, and if biographies appear, I'll add them back to the proper list. I'll even try to put together some biographies myself as I have opportunity.--John Foxe 19:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's unclear why Rich Merritt has previously been removed from this entry, despite the fact that he does have a Wikipedia entry and is certainly better known than some of the others listed. The University may need to grapple with the fact that some of its more prominent graduates are gay, but that shouldn't predicate the removal of them from any relevant entry on Wikipedia.
 * Hello, anonymous. I too think Merritt should be on the list; but I've removed description that sounded promotional.--John Foxe (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable graduates
John Foxe (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Samuel Hensley, CFO, PODS Enterprises, Inc.
 * Stephen D. Livesay, President of Bryan College, Dayton, TN
 * Les Ollila, chancellor, Northland Baptist Bible College, Dunbar, WI.
 * Bob Nyanja, Kenyan filmmaker.
 * Sam Rohrer, Pennsylvania House of Representatives, 128th District.
 * O. Talmadge Spence (1926-2000), founder and first president, Foundations Bible College, Dunn, NC.
 * W. H. Steeves, CFO, Bruncor Corporation.

Notable honorary degree recipients
John Foxe (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Vance Havner, evangelist (1947)
 * Lester E. Pipkin, founder, Appalachian Bible College (1967)
 * Mel Trotter, former alcoholic, rescue mission director (1935)

Mary Lamb
Mary Lamb was recognized by Cambridge's Who's Who. She is on BJU's faculty.  --158.158.240.230 (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cambridge Who's Who sounds like a vanity service: "Cambridge Who's Who membership provides individuals with a valuable third party endorsement of their accomplishments and gives them the tools needed to brand themselves and their businesses effectively." There are a few grandfathered names on the BJU faculty list here, but any new names should have a Wiki bio that can withstand an AfD challenge, as does, for instance Dan Forrest.--John Foxe (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable
Wayne Mouritzen

Wayne Mouritzen was a noteable and beloved GAY -- the word "homosexual" to denote a person is out of fashion and considered both pejorative and offensive by most gay people -- alumnus of Bob Jones University. The controversy that surrounded his ban letter from campus (and the University's subsequent partial recanting) is a part of Bob Jones University's legacy, particularly since this is an ongoing pattern the university deploys with its gay students and alumni, as you are no doubt aware. Please consult the meaning of the word "encyclopedia." To claim that factual information that gives a more complete picture of the subject at hand is "not encyclopedic" is to ignore the etymology of the very word itself: "complete knowledge." Brodacious (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

David R. Anderson

David is rector of one of the largest Episcopal congregations in the United States. Regardless that he does not currently have a wikipedia page himself, he meets the definition of a noteworthy person. He is far more noteworthy (and influential), then Jamie Langston Turner, for example, who is a lovely person, nonetheless. http://www.saintlukesdarien.org/content.cfm?id=149&member_id=18 Brodacious (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

We've been through this business a number of times before, although not recently. There needs to be some objective measure of what notable means. I didn't establish the "red link" standard, but it's a good one. I'll be glad to go with you to some Wikipedia mediation forum if you wish. Note that there are some redlinked BJU grads in the comments above for whom no one has yet written Wikipedia biographies. I'd encourage you to add Mouritzen and Anderson to that list—even to write your own AfD-proof bios for them--John Foxe (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of Bob Jones University people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060522222018/http://www.thestate.com:80/mld/thestate/news/nation/14299998.htm to http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/14299998.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)