Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farrell Till


 * 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 keep. Ifnord 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Farrell Till
Farrell Till simply isn't notable. He was an editor of a publication with a very small audience. He has written a few articles and debated a few people. These things certainly don't make him notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * as nominator, your 'delete' vote is assumed.
 * Keep 28,800 hits on Google, and I'm not liking what I'm seeing here, looks like a revenge series of AfDs in retailiation for the Chuck Missler one. Ruby 04:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This is and any other WP:POINT nominations.   --Rob 04:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep; nomination made in bad faith. -- keep sleep ing   quit your job!   slack off!  04:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete There are obvious WP:POINT issues here but let's try to deal with each article on its own merits. In this case, there are just over 400 Ghits ( go to the end of the list and look at the count now).  He seems at about the same level of notability as some of the diploma mill nomination.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its important to point out, that in a speedy keep doesn't give somebody a free pass on WP:BIO. Its not a precedent for keeping the article, the way a normal keep would be.  A speedy keep just puts things back the way they were yesterday.  If we had done a speedy keep (which isn't happening apparently), nothing would stop you or any other editor from doing a good faith nomination.  Its hard to tell somebody they shouldn't have done a nomination,  but since they did, we'll give them what they want.    --Rob 07:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I agree the nom was made in bad faith, I agree he is not notable. Crunch 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Dlyons493 and Crunch. It is a very immoral "revenge" for the AfDs filed against Jason Gastrich's articles, but this article is also not bery notable. SycthosTalk 04:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I hereby Abstain myself from these AfDs created in bad faith. SycthosTalk 04:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Mr. Till's written works tend to annoy me, but I have encountered them more than once in my research. Notable, but a borderline case. →  P . Mac Uidhir (t)  (c)  05:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep nomination made in bad faith as an act of "retaliation." Mark K. Bilbo 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, nomination in bad faith; Till has shown some notable influence in the skeptic community, in large part because of his previous association with evangelical Christianity. And here's something that's amusing:  One of the "few people" that Till has debated is Gastrich, after which, Gastrich posted a "gay urges" email forgery.  There's obviously a personal history between the two, and I've suggested before that it would be a good idea for someone like Gastrich, who is completely incapable of acting from a neutral POV, to recuse himself from these kinds of things. - WarriorScribe 06:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dave Horn (WarriorScribe) cannot follow Wikipedia's rules or stay on task without personal attacks. Nonetheless, I'll correct his lie by omission. Several years ago, Farrell Till was suspended for 1 week from posting on my internet forum for being abusive. During the suspension, he broke the rules by registering with a fake name and it was banned. Next, he registered a different, fake name, and it was also banned. Incidentally, both aliases spoke very highly of him. Consequently, I played a bad joke on him by posting that letter, but I did apologize, afterwards. Dave Horn's selective memory and unforgiveness just goes to show why many people don't feel the need to apologize for things and act in a Christian manner on the internet. Detestable people like Dave Horn will hold it against them until the day they die. Fortunately, since I've repented and sought God's forgiveness, I've been forgiven by Christ and that's what really matters.--Jason Gastrich 20:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, just do whatever you like to your fellow man and then ask for forgiveness - "Christianity Nouveau". Obviously this is a personal vendetta, so KEEP. --Censorwolf 21:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, Gastrich sneaks in his stolen-name-domain group, which contains significant lies that have been rebutted and refuted. Of course, those things aren't allowed on Gastrich's group, so it had to be done elsewhere.  Here are some specific rebuttals, all of which have sent Gastrich fleeing, and most of which expose his intent and, to put it politely, "imagination:"


 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5
 * 6
 * 7
 * 8
 * 9


 * Having established himself in many venues as disingenuous, at least, there's really not much point in going into whatever details might have occurred before Gastrich's "joke." The fact is that there was noting to omit because it was not relevant to the point.  Whateveer might have happened before Gastrich's fraudulent email is entirely irrelevant to the fact that he did issue the fraudulent email.  His apology only occurred after he was outed as the forger, and he had no choice.  There was no "selective memory" on my part.  Whatever excuse that Gastrich might have had for the behavior are entirely irrelevant.  It was a juvenile, mean-spirited, hateful thing to do, but it's par for the course for Jason Gastrich, and it helps to establish and affirm a pattern.  Gastrich attempts to justify bad behavior by two criteria.  First, he will shift the burden of responsibility by blaming another person for "making" him do what he did.  Then he'll excuse the whole thing by claiming that God forgives him for it.
 * Gastrich believes in "once-saved, always-saved," which means that he can pretty much do anything he wants, regardless of what anyone else thinks of it, and he's "forgiven," so it's all good. What Gastrich almost always forgets is that he's also supposed to be a witness for the Gospel and for Jesus Christ, and so his character and actions must be above reproach.  An occasional lapse can be forgiven by others, but when one demonstrates a pattern of false identities, forged emails (we know about one, which means that there may be more), and sock puppets, as well as hostile behavior and sensitivity to criticism, then there is good cause to view anything and everything that he does with suspicion. - WarriorScribe 20:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * More spamming of your hate group and more avoiding responsibility for your heinous behavior. I can't say I'm surprised. --Jason Gastrich 21:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anyone is too concerned about what surprises (or does not surprise) Gastrich. His is the response of a hypocrite and doesn't concern me.  He's rebutted, refuted, and exposed as a liar in the specific articles I cite above.  'Tis enough...t'will serve.  The only hate that is occurring here is that of Gastrich for those that expose him to the light of day. - WarriorScribe 22:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I was skeptical, but he gets a good deal of hits at Google and five at Scholar Google.--T. Anthony 07:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, and I would advise people against using AfD to start an ideological war. Grandmasterka 10:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, enough google hits and general noise for an article. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Absolutely nothing in the article implies notability. --Pierremenard 13:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Astrokey44 |talk 15:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stub articles on notable people need expansion, not deletion. -- Dragonfiend 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain Shoddy article, borderline notability, POV nomination. --kingboyk 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep; nomination made in bad faith. Jim62sch 19:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * week keep per WP:POINT and Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] AfD? 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; nomination made in bad faither as per Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich --Censorwolf 21:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WarriorScribe. Nomination in bad faith. MCB 22:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep Notable subject. Article is also linked to by other articles.  Brokenfrog 01:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Warriorscribe. Harvestdancer 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 02:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Farrell Till has achieved a level of notability in the skeptic community and has published works considered significant in that community. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Crotalus. Notability established. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - not just WP:POINT, but apparently an actual person Gastrich has been in conflict with - Guettarda 13:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and add to the growing RFC against Jason Gastrich. This is a violation of WP:POINT. Stifle 16:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep due to bad faith nomination. Note that this implies no opinion about the notability or otherwise of Farrell Till. I will only consider a good faith nomination. --Spondoolicks 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 05:48Z 
 * Keep. Till is borderline notable. However, the article is linked to by other articles and Till turns up many google hits. Incidentally, Gastrich's behavior has exceeded any reasonable bounds. JoshuaZ 03:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.