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

THIS IS NOT A VOTE TALLY, it is an analysis of the debate.

Keep
(Author) This list is like other university lists on Wikipedia. Helpful and informative.
 * Issues with this: this is not an accredited unbiversity; also this appears to be a POV fork from the LBU article where there is an edit war about the "notable" alumni.


 * Keep. List of notable people connected with a wonderful school.
 * Suggest strike, user's sole edit on WP.


 * Keep Notable school. But may I suggest renaming it?
 * Possibly labouring under a misconception: this is not the school article, but a list of alumni. Not much prior history on AfD but plenty of contribs on the main and project spaces


 * Strong Keep This is a great list. LBU is a great university with many impressive grads.
 * Virtually no history on WP (project or main), called to the fray by Gastrich per Talk.


 * keep please this list is informative and too big to put on the main article
 * Long history on AfD as an inclusionist, called to the fray by Gastrich but may well have come along anyway.


 * weak keep could do with renaming "List of notable alumni" or something like that.
 * 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
 * Keep(strong) First of all, the nom uses very subjective language. Diploma mill is a pretty crappy spin to put on things.  Second, there may be someone who wants to do research on the school and its associates, why not have a page?
 * Strong Keep university-related topics are notable.
 * 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) The Great Gavinilobster telephone
 * Keep. Useful content is useful content; keep it around. 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". Itake 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keeep I think it can be notable and it is interesting. Gubbubu 22:42, 20 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.  Silensor 16:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, This information is valuable and should be included. Salva veritate Lerner 17:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep same as above. --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.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. What a waste of time. The vote to delete the parent article was lost. (The 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. Andrewa 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theologist101 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * User has a total of 14 edits. Arbustoo 06:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. --Hayson 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (The previous unsigned message was not from me)
 * Keep Regardless of people's opinion of the information, it is still good information. I actually found the article quite useful.the1physicist 21:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A few of these people are editors, and authors, and notable people. They belong on an encyclopedia. Эйрон  Кинни  18:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Which few are you talking about? One option is to merge them into the Louisiana Baptist University page. David D. (Talk) 18:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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. 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.... 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.  Kurt Weber 15:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. This shouldn't be about religion, only about what's best for wikipedia... Spawn Man 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The subjects of the article clearly exist.  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. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Yes I was found this all by myself - Keep this per Kurt.--God of War 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Stop hating on anyone with religion. 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. Brokenfrog
 * Anti-factionalist fearmongering ;-) Ruby 03:06, 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 unencyclopedic, but I see no reason to single this one out. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep / Merge

 * Keep or merge with original article. This AfD appears to be in danger of going off-topic. This is suppose to be about whether or not the article is worth keeping, not about whether or not LBU is a "degree mill" or not, or the merits of accreditation, or other stuff this AfD is bringing up. Let's get back on topic, does this article deserve to exist? I say yes, why not, otherwise, we should begin removing other school's lists. It could probably be paired down to be just notable alumni, but it still deserves to exist.--Azathar 23:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Several of these people are already in the entry for Louisiana Baptist University


 * Merge into Louisiana Baptist University.
 * Merge into Louisiana Baptist University. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 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.  Rogue 9 10:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Given it's current state, it should be weaned and merged into the main article under the Notable Alumni section. Wynler 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge / Delete

 * 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"). (also: Delete if merging is not possible)
 * Merge if not delete. Mark K. Bilbo 18:32, 18 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. bcatt 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge any actual notables into the university article, otherwise delete. --Devein 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, if not delete. I may be an inclusionist, but I'm not stupid. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 06:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge any actual notables into the university article, otherwise delete. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge with main article.
 * Delete or merge into article on the "university", which already has a list of notable alumni. Not enough content here to merit a separate article.

Delete
(Nom) List of mostly non-notable people connected (sometimes loosely) with a diploma mill attended by the originator of the article.
 * Issues with this: AJA nominated many articles all at once. These noms do not cover all people in the list, so there is at least some evidence of judgment, rather than block deleitonism


 * Delete per nomination. I thought we had categories for this list junk anyways (though I'd support this being deleted from categories as well).
 * Merge as per Scythos *Delete
 * AfD regular


 * 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
 * Long history with Gastrich, short history with AfD but other involvement in Project space


 * 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.
 * Long history with Gastrich, plenty of involvement in Project space including several AfDs; may have been called to the fray


 * 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 main article.
 * Delete. Borderline libellous per Tups, borderline listcruft, borderline lack of notability, and Gastrich's vote recruiting tips my teetering vote over all three lines.
 * Delete And now I see the wisdom in keeping List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Yes, friends, this is a list of people who are graduates from an unaccredited institution of higher learning, and yes that does mean exactly what you think it does: a diploma mill.  This is more Gastrichcruft, burn it now.
 * Delete per nom.
 * Delete, no need to merge non-notable people to parent article. JzG is right:  that list of unaccrediteds is a handy place to find junk and too-fanatic-to-meet-standards when there's a question about an unknown institution supposedly of higher learning.
 * Delete there is already a (short) section for notable grads in the school article. We don't need another list.
 * Delete categorize if you have to
 * Delete. Vanity piece by Gastrich and co-agents of LBU diploma mill nonsense.
 * Delete per nom
 * Delete
 * Delete
 * Delete
 * Delete as a list of interest to very few people, apparently created just for the sake of having a list, i.e. listcruft.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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. Zunaid 13:24, 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. -Harvestdancer 17:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (strong) I don't see how this is necessary with the inclusion of notables on LBU's page. The discussion seems to be mostly reasonable peppered other than the personal attacks from the author.  I would say that there would be vote stacking.  I received notice of this from a email list headed by Jason Gastrich himself.  If I could get a place to host I would be happy to post said email.  To quote from that message:
 * Well, we could first remove anything from this list that wasn't WP:Verifiable from 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. -  brenneman (t) (c)  02:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As others have stated, these seems partially redundant with the notables list, and the author's arguments do not persuade me of this list's worthiness (or indeed, the worthiness of many of the list's items) KrazyCaley 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom. Justin Eiler 16:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic list. Vote stacking attempt leaves a bad taste in my mouth. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 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. Crunch 16:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Crunch. rodii 19:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Crunch. --Dragonfiend 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gamaliel 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Indicate they are LBU alumni on each person's biographical article. Ruby 03:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - while a diploma mill might have some notability, the people associated with it -- not so much.--SarekOfVulcan 08:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom.Gateman1997 08:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  13:19, Jan. 23, 2006
 * Delete. List of financial transactions, in effect, and not verifiable by reasonable means short of people's receipts. Charles Matthews 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, since most of the people listed aren't notable in themselves, but if Mike Randall et al. are kept, then my vote can be for a weak keep instead. Including it (or not) should depend on the results of the related AfD's. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong DELETE; -- why not have an article for every unknown fringe person who graduated from South Succotash High School in an article. This is just ridiculous self-promotion. Jim62sch 02:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete article, non-notables list takes up room. Arbustoo 03:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Riiiiiiight. --Jason Gastrich 07:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comments to those that oppose keeping this and your emails to those who will likely side with your views really shows your character. You are not right and thus only way you get people to support you is to a play the religious martyr role--- which many people don't buy. Arbustoo 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Abstain

 * Merge. Useful content, but doesn't need to stand in an article of its own. --StuffOfInterest 12:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 20:30, 22 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. u p p l a n d 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * abstain I don't know enough about this here yet so I'm abstaining for now. But it seems to me that alot of these articles here, the bio's I mean, pass into the notable stage and are verifiable. I'm not a christian by a long shot and I have issues with fundamentalism in a big way but that doesn't mean these folks don't deserve to be here. 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. A PERFECT WIKI ARTICLE in my opion. And just to be above board here, I was asked to come vote here by the author. This is not vote stacking or Ballot stuffing, it is simply campaigning. Those of you opposed to this author or these entries will just have to trust that the people who are brought in can make up their own minds regardless of how they got here. Personally, I'm questioning the objectivity and neutrality of both sides here. This is an encyclopedia without page limits and in order to avoid charges of bias especially in these controversial areas, we should always err on the side of inclusiveness.Ginar 14:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * strong abstain. deep breaths everyone! 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" like it for various universities. They haven't been merged with their university. --Jason Gastrich 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How many times are you going to post you abstain. Arbustoo 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)