Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Ice


 * 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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Ice
'''This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of,. 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 Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 01:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. SycthosTalk 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a complete lie. I never admitted using sockpuppets to "aid myself in AfD"; nor have I ever done this, even when I did use sockpuppets in my first days in Wikipedia!
 * If you look at the history, an admin checked IPs and confirmed that I never did this to sway a vote and I still never have done this.
 * You need to get your facts straight and show that you care for the folks at Wikipedia. This atrocious lie/accusation at the top of many pages is inexcusable and I'd like an apology; and I think the good people that you may have influenced with this lie should receive an apology as well. --Jason Gastrich 04:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge your attempts to evangelize Wikipedia, but your argument will not stand without a statement disputing against it. First of all, if your statements remain true, then why is Wiggins2 blocked 24 hours for "external campaigning group spamming talk pages to pack Wikipedia debates"? User:Big Daddy is another one of your main sockpuppets. If you look at its contribution history, there is no doubt that you have violated WP:SOCK for using sockpuppets to create an "illusion for a broader support" for your position.
 * I do not appreciate your constant and veiled use of euphemisms and words/phrases with a slightly more negative connotation when used against others. This is a complete lie is not correct, as you have, in fact, used sockpuppetry for AfDs. Also, I, in fact, do care for the folks on Wikipedia. If I didn't care, I would not even mind editing any mistakes I catch in articles, reverting and simple vandalism I see, or voicing my opinion in Wikipedia debates. I openly apologize to you if I have offended you, but I would also request you to conform to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Thanks. SYCTHOS talk  05:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadly, once again Gastrich makes statements here which are at their heart disingenuous. Gastrich's suspected sockpuppetry is subject of an ongoing investigation and RFC: Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. There his actions here and on other AFD's are being reviewed and discussed by the community as part of its dispute resolution process. FeloniousMonk 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination
Not everybody with some kind of "ministry" is notable. A.J.A. 05:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments and votes

 * Delete per nom. A.J.A. 05:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Editor nominated 10 Christian biography entries for deletion, today. It's hard to assume good faith. Plus, Thomas Ice is a very notable author, debater, speaker, and leader. In fact, he has over 37,000 hits on Google.com . --Jason Gastrich 05:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A load of hits on Yahoo, too. Until we refine the search criteria.  And even refining it gives us gems like this: Saint Thomas Ice Arena ... The Saint Thomas Ice Arena is located just across from the Saint Thomas Academy school in Mendota Heights ... Copyright © 2004 Saint Thomas Ice Arena. Last modified: 06/10/05 ...www.saintthomasicearena.com - 12k - Cached - More from this site" Jim62sch 23:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And if we refine the search to this, "thomas+ice+christian", we get "Results 1 - 6 of about 11 for "thomas+ice+christian"". Wow, impressive.  Jim62sch 23:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The correct search term is "thomas ice" christian which yields 21,700 hits. As anyone can prove, at least 25,000 of the 37,400 "Thomas Ice" hits are about this author. Probably many more, around 30,000. Even so, this does not mean "notable" to me... Actually, anyone with some knowledge of Christendom and eyes in his head (or fingers on his hand) can see that Thomas Ice is notable, both positively and negatively, to millions of people. OK, where notability is disputed, references can clinch it, but really, in this case it's like trying to prove apples taste good (218 Google hits). AvB ÷ talk  16:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep 37,800 hits at Google, not nearly all of which are this person. Notability may exist within a small segment of Christendom, but is the opinion is apparently not widespread; and Wiki isn't here to cater to the hero worship of a single editor or a relative few.  - WarriorScribe 05:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote was originally for deletion. Changed (if that's okay) upon further review of WP:BIO and the subject's publication record. Apologies all around for the need to change the vote. - WarriorScribe 07:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, he has likely written more books than you've read. --Jason Gastrich 05:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Personal attack noted with amusement. - WarriorScribe 05:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A display of his much-touted debating skills. Jim62sch 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * keep' please this is a important author erasing this does not make sense at all Yuckfoo 05:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Important author" to whom? By what criteria?  - WarriorScribe 05:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To those that read (written for your amusement, of course). --Jason Gastrich 06:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Personal attack again noted, with amusement. - WarriorScribe 06:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't went get some sales statistics and prove this either way?
 * Mein Kampf sold quite well also. Jim62sch 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mein Kampf sold extremely well, and is notable. Bad example. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about Mao Zedong's book? Jim62sch 00:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That also sold extremely well and is very notable. Another bad example.  -- Cyde Weys  23:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Jim62sch 01:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. hius qualifications are from a diploma mill. self-styled religious leader.Blnguyen 06:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Easy Keep WP:BIO - Jaysus Chris 07:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. He seems notable enough.  Personal interest and taste should not be used as criteria for inclusion or deletion.  I'd chop out half the articles in Wikipedia, if I were able to weed out what I find unimportant.  I might even delete this one, if it were a matter of what is "important" to me.  Logophile 07:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Please explain who published his books and cite where 5,000+ people have read them. WP:BIO You keep saying "notable" and offer no citation, much like the article.


 * Keep You may not know him but in the world of Christian Prophecy he is a prominent exponent of the pre-tribulation position. I would never dream of asking for deletion of articles about individuals who have a similar influence and yet hold other views. Admittedly the article could do with some improvement and additional biographical and professional information. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 09:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep many published books -- Astrokey44 |talk 09:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - His published books make him notable enough. And by the way Jason Gastrich - not everyone is in on this anti-Christian conspiracy.  Personally, I'm looking at the articles nominated with a fair eye and deciding on each one whether or not it is notable. Cyde Weys  2M-VOTE  16:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, you weren't using your "fair eye" on the Mike Randall entry. You voted to delete because you said he was the president of a diploma mill. In fact, he is the president of a regionally accredited university. I hope you change your vote for that entry. --Jason Gastrich 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's "regionally accredited university" in the sense of "nationally un-accredited university" - i.e. diploma mill. Not that you have any conflict of interest, right? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 12:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, "regionally accredited university" really doesn't mean anything. It's vacuous nonsense meant to deceive. Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.  Jim62sch 22:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:JzG and Jim haven't a clue. Mike Randall is the president of a regionally accredited university. Regional accreditation is the highest, governmental accreditation in the land. I do hope you guys look it up, get your facts straight, and stop personal attacks; especially when you're wrong. --Jason Gastrich 04:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing my vote because frankly the behavior of a lot of people related to this issue has turned me off. -- Cyde Weys  23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're either mistaken or being misleading. The government doesn't accredit schools. Read School_accreditation. FeloniousMonk 06:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Of the books listed, about 25% of them are sold at Amazon.com.  The ones that are sold usually place between 250,000 - 500,000 on the popularity of most sold books.  The most popular is the commentary on the Left Behind series.--Esprit15d 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not hard to get an ISBN work, properly package to be sold at Amazon.


 * Keep as per everyone else. Hall Monitor 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep reasonable number of books found in mainstream (Amazon, B&N, such). And the dispensational fundamentalist camp is notable, however, unfortunate that is (I keep wanting to apologize that my people gave the world Darby). Mark K. Bilbo 18:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that being on Amazon makes a book notable or mainstream. Many of the ones they sell are self published. David D. (Talk) 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Point. However, at least some of his books are with (albeit Christian) publishing houses (such as Harvest House, New Leaf). And he has written and/or edited with LaHaye who is a major figure in the dispensational fundamentalist movement. Ice may not be as notable as a Falwell but doesn't seem--to me at least--to be obscure either. I'd say he's "notable enough." Maybe I should say "weak keep?" Mark K. Bilbo 20:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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. See List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people. --Q
 * Strong keep published author B.ellis 21:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep Delete I agree with Q. but the fact is that this fellow's output is enough to allow him a mention. Also, it is possible more sceptical content may eventually be produced; this lunatic believes in the rapture lol. Based on further comments below, changing my vote.  The vote stacking is unacceptable and the provenance of the author's qualifications ludicrous.  Eusebeus 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Quantity over quality and relevance? Jim62sch 00:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Delete The books are all vanity press, he's barely notable, but as a co-founder and director of a diploma mill we should probably have an article on him. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing vote, the more I look at this and read other comments, the harder it gets to justify space for this. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Cnwb 00:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Guettarda 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete director of a redlinked institution, teaching on a redlinked subject, PhD from a diploma mill, books have Amazon sales rank in the hundreds of thousands and above (where listed at all). A book I know well, a steadcy if not meteoric seller, is Mister God, This is Anna.  That's been around for, what? twenty years?  And it still has a sales rank of the order of 50k.  Sorry, but this is just one more of the steady stream of Louisiana Baptist University alumni being pushed by Gastrich.  And I note that he's also been vote-stacking, which absolutely clinhes it for me. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 11:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and JzG, influenced strongly by the vote stacking. Stifle 17:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, two things. First, since the alleged vote stacking, there haven't been any votes to keep; just to delete. My alleged vote stacking simply asked four or five people to vote (not one way or the other). So, you being strongly influenced by that doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, voting one way out of spite isn't in Wikipedia's best interests, so I'm sure that'll be noted by many as well. Honorable Wikipedians will examine the entry and decide one way or the other. --Jason Gastrich 18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mr. Gastrich, allow me to say for myself, I am an Afd regular and I often vote to delete, not because I am a deletionist but because those doing the nominating usually have good reason. That said, I also do due diligence. I am very proud of having "saved" several articles, including a Russian folk song and a truly tacky but notable drinking game . I also chastise those whom I suspect of bad-faith nominations. I do not consider these bad-faith noms. It appears to me that you, as you cannot rewrite the article for LBU since it is protected, have decided to take another tack and make a list of people who went to LBU and write articles about them. While it is understandable that you would want to try to gain for your alma mater as much credibility as can be gleaned, filling the pages of WP with articles about people whose main claim to fame is that they got their diploma from the same place as you is vanity. You have compounded vanity with attempts at vote-stacking, and now with personal attacks and accusations of "spite voting" which is nonsense in my case, and I believe in the case of every editor voting here. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In a way, the purpose of vote-stacking has been served -- a handful of people heard of the Frozen Thomas prior to this AfD, now scores of people have. Excellent PR work...or is that evangelizing?  Self-promotion?  Pride?  (Oh, no, can't be the last, that's one of those sin things).  Jim62sch 00:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete (weak) per KillerChihuahua. David D. (Talk) 19:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (Strong) He nominated 10 articles by the same person on the same subject for deletion.  That just reeks of bad faith.  Add to that the subject's being a well known and prolific author (albeit with an odd subject matter) warrents a wikipedia article.  Wikipedia is not paper!Brokenfrog 20:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (strong) I don't see how this is necessary with the inclusion of actual 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:

"...Several weeks ago, JCSM (Jesus Christ Saves Ministries) noticed this trend and created a new ministry called Wiki4Christ. It's an organization that exists to make sure Christians have a united and represented voice on Wikipedia.  As you may imagine, unbelievers also edit there and they actively try to silence Christian input and revert our contributions; especially Christian biographies!  This is where we need you, now.

Yesterday, the entries below were nominated for deletion. This means there will be a vote on whether or not to keep them. Please come and let your voice be heard! This endeavor will only take 10-15 minutes and it will be something you can do with your online time that will further the kingdom of God. Wouldn't you like to vote to keep Christian entries on Wikipedia?..."

He goes on to give links to all of his articles that are noted for deletion. He also doesn't point out these articles are authored by himself. - I would say that this languaged is charged to skew voting. I have been a longtime fan and user of Wiki and this is the first time I've been interested in its process. Jazzscrub 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Some relevant links to evidence of what Jazzscrub describes: jcsm.org/Online/WeeklyDevotions440.htm FeloniousMonk 22:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep university-related topics are notable. Cynical 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is America. Its not a University just because it calls itself one. I could open a hot-dog stand University if I wanted. It just wouldn't be accredited, like LBU. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this post shows your ignorance regarding LBU and its requirements. You can learn about the university here, though . --Jason Gastrich 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your campaign here to promote your diploma mill is its most notable aspect. Who knows, maybe they'll name a "hall" in your honor... FeloniousMonk 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The requirements being that one must accept Jesus as his personal saviour and believe in the accuracy of the Bible. BTW, Jason: KC is hardly ignorant, rather, KC is very well-versed on a wide variety of subjects and researches before commenting.  Jim62sch 00:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into an article which discusses Ice and anyone else who has at least this much notability in the subject area. I don't think he warrants his own article, but this one seems to be of sufficient interest (if only to baptist circles) to mention somewhere within a more general article. bcatt 22:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete pity we can't delete the author. &mdash; Dunc|☺ 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete FeloniousMonk 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Dunc's on the right track. Ice baby needs to be melted and steamed away into the ether. Jim62sch 22:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it looks for me like he's worth a note on wikipedia, at least for the mere volume of books he wrote. --Devein 22:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --kingboyk 23:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * comment if this many people care you might as well keep it, I mean there are almost a million articles, if more than a handful of people have an interest then why delete it--M4bwav 23:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. So . . . wanna vote? --Jason Gastrich 07:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * keep as per User:Cyde opinion above. Not that I agree with any of Mr. Ice's opinions, but he has published alot.--Azathar 23:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep He appears to be notable enough.  Ban  e  s  07:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Cyde ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:BIO. Alphax τεχ 07:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not much for Gastrich's style here, but rampant deletions just to spite one guy rub me the wrong way.  Rogue 9 10:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your analysis may be in error. Thomas Ice is essentially a nobody in the real world.  He has a small cult following, and produced books of little or no value to anyone but those who share his rather unorthodox views. (This may seem harsh, but reality sometimes bites). In a way, what would really be best would be an article on "Inerrantist Writers" (or something like that) that mentioned Ice, but wasting kilobytes on this guy alone is a tad ridiculous. Jim62sch 11:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems notable enough. --King of All the Franks 11:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per a recent AfD for Louisiana Baptist University, it appears there is a community out there who believes in deleting anything with practices they don't agree in.  Better to know than to ignore. --StuffOfInterest 12:39, 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 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's a published author, as per WP:BIO.  Kerobaros 13:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Holy good gravy!  This is a good quality article.  All ISBNs are there.  Not a red link in sight.  There's obviously a place in Wikipedia for this guy. - The Great Gavini lobster telephone


 * Strong Keep Not one single good argument against deletion here. This dude is the head of an institution founded by Tim LaHayes. Tim LaHayes is more noteworthy then all you people put together. This article isn't going anywhere, it is staying right here. Itake 15:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an arugument from ignorance (you don't know about people voting here) as well as an assertion (Tim is noteworthy) and not very convincing. Certainly much less convincing than the arguments to delete. David D. (Talk) 18:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tim LaHaye (ain't no flippin' "s" on the end of his name) is also a bad writer, a bad logician, a twisted thinker and a sower of discord. Heading-up any organization started by him is no great achievement. Jim62sch 01:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Seems to be a legitimate author of many books, notable on Google, even in Brazil!. Walkerma 15:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable. Justin Eiler 16:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Published Author Wynler 17:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep same as above. --Yonghokim 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I see little reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Salva veritate! Lerner 18:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep easily passes the WP:BIO standards. ALKIVAR ™Radioactivity symbol.png 18:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep--Hayson 21:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. None of the above seems to challenge that he's an author sufficiently widely read to justify inclusion. Disagreeing with what he wrote, however strongly, isn't a reason for deletion. If someone cares to provide evidence that the many listed publications are all vanity press, I will reconsider. But the problem is, Amazon isn't a good guide for authors like this who sell directly or through lobby groups. Andrewa 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I hadn't heard of him, but I did an Amazon.com query, and that gave 498 results in Books.  Sounds like he's at least a prolific published author (fine for inclusion per WP:BIO), and even if he's not as well known, Tim LaHaye definitely is, as one of the authors of the bestselling Left Behind series. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Um, no. You left your search open so that it caught books with "Ice Cream" in the title written by people with the first name "Thomas." Put quotes around the name and you get no more than 42. Many of which are translations of a single work, at least one is about Thomas Ice (et al), several are "pocket books," and the greater number he is a contributor to (as in an article or so), not the sole nor primary author. You have to be careful with Amazon searches. Particularly with names that have common words in them such as "Ice." Mark K. Bilbo 03:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia.  You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote.  Here's the email.  -- Cyde Weys  16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"
 * Strong Keep per Logophile and mr lobster-man.the1physicist 22:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Another link of value: Jason Exposed
 * strong keep, the "hero" of article is author of many works, compact and quite informative article. Gubbubu 22:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ATTENTION


 * Hello,


 * I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.


 * Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.


 * By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!


 * Sincerely,


 * Jason Gastrich


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim


 * Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Itake 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, posting the e-mail was insinuating that the e-mail is bullshit. Nice catch.  Jim62sch 02:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. An author with several books on Amazon.com --Vizcarra 18:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean anything. At a cost of $150 per book I too can get published on Amazon.  See Lulu Publishing.  The ability to spend paltry sums of money does not make someone notable.  -- Cyde Weys  04:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that Tommy used Lulu Publishing? --Jason Gastrich 07:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Publisher is Harvest House Publishers not Lulu Publishing. --Vizcarra 18:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * His point was ANYONE who wants to fork out a few bucks can get their works sold at Amazon. Arbustoo 02:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think his point was that Amazon.com hits do not mean anything, with the implication that Vizcarra's link is useless. But that is putting the world on its head. Amazon is an extremely useful tool when checking out someone's publications. They list all titles they can deliver - new, used, Print on demand - anything. Thomas Ice has 42 hits on Amazon where he is listed as author, co-author, editor, or subject (yes - there are books by others ABOUT and AGAINST Thomas Ice's views). From there it is easy to check the publishers. One mouseclick away from the list linked by Vizcarra one can see the real publisher. What is easier, saying "Lulu" or clicking on a link? Vizcarra gave full information. Click here and check it out. This article should never have been nominated for AfD. AvB ÷ talk  18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep --badlydrawnjeff 13:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- this is clearly a notable person, and not only in view of the number of books he has sold (BTW, most titles predate POD etc.). I'll try to free some time to look up references. AvB ÷ talk  18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. If he's writen stuff, (& a lot of it!), 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 04:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...
 * Strong Delete of unnotable article to promote alumni of LBU. Arbustoo 02:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - 20 published books makes him notable. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - anyone can publish a book. Ashibaka tock 18:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 20 published books, also connected to LaHaye and that's a Christian slant which has quite some influence in American Christianity. Disagreement with author or subject of an article is no reason for deletion. --Irmgard 00:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Gastrich sockpuppets

Those listed at Requests for CheckUser:

Keep ridiculous to delete an author with this many publications. California12 02:30 18 January 2006

Wiggins2

Click the link and learn Jim62sch 02:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep the article as per Amazon ranking eg and spank Gastrich, depending on check-user or other evidence, and move the discussion to the talk page.  Regards, Ben Aveling 06:32, 24 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.