Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Morey (second nomination)


 * 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 was keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 19:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Morey
Previously deleted by Articles for deletion/Robert Morey, but this is not a repost so not speediable. Has also been previously reposted at Robert A Morey. Main claim to fame appears to be having written some books, but it is really not uncommon for Christian authors to write numerous short tracts, which are readily published by specialist Christian publishing houses. Nothing substantive seems to have changed about the subject since the previous deletion. Just zis Guy you know? 17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete It is speediable as a copyvio, though. In addition, he seems to have published a lot, but his books are all at 500,000 plus on Amazon (with the exception of one that is ~180,000) and most are in the one-to-two million range. This nomination may or may not be part of a Masonic plot. ;-)  JChap  T  /  E  20:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a copyvio, though the masonic plot remains open.&mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty clear cut-and-paste from the referenced webpage with some material deleted and a few words changed. Not sure if that gets us over the copyvio bar ...  JChap  T  /  E  23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you been back to the page lately? It's, like, totally different now.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So it is. Kudos to you and KillerChihuahua.  Changing to keep.  JChap  T  /  E  12:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Guy, this has naught to do with the previous article. (In fact, until JoshuaZ pointed out that there had been a previous article, I was unaware of the fact).  Morey has created much recent controversy regarding Islam, and as such merits an article (hence KC  suggesting that one be written).  Is the article topical, yes.  Are we likely to need it in 10 years? probably not.  But the same can be said for at least 10% of our articles.  It might be nice if rather than re-AfD, you would wait to see what develops first.  Right now, AfD's on an article less than 12 hours old smacks of censorship and bad faith is just wrong.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Yes, Josh is right -- sorry, Guy, I got a bit hot. One the other hand, your idea to delete Morey himself mightn't be a bad one.  ;)


 * Keep While I think Jim's comments about censorship and bad faith are innaccurate, note that there were serious keep votes in the previous AfD, and part of the reason it seems to have been deleted was as a reaction to the sockpuppetry by Jason Gastrich. Most importantly, Morey is notable within extreme-right evangelical christianity. JoshuaZ 00:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In whicih case I vote to delete Morey himself :o) Just zis Guy you know? 07:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep His book The Islamic Invasion: Confronting The World's Fastest-Growing Religion and the subsequent tract (same content with minor changes) The Moon-God Allah In The Archeology Of The Middle East has started a bit of a trend among right-wing Christian polemics who take his poorly researched weirdness as utter truth, causing a minor flurry of pulpits booming the news that Allah is a pagan moon god. Nonsense, but notable nonsense. Concur w/Guy that deleting Morey would help; that not being a viable option we should have an NPOV article on him for the curious. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this version then, now the article claims notability. The masonic plotters had better reward me. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 18:12, 13 August 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.