Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jay S. Thomas

I think that I have found the source of this dispute and the reason that this article was deleted. Though it tends to be colored in terms of "wiki guidelines" which is an ironic term in and of itself, I truly believe that this is a case of both religious persecution and racial discrimination. With regard to religion, it is obvious that the existence of reformed evangelical Christian content would be shunned by the comprehensively secular bias of such a place such a wikipedia, thus making you all just as controversial and fifth column as the creator/editors of conserapedia. Thusly, considering the blatant refusal to allow cited and relevant information concerning legitimate Christian leaders and legitimate Christian content, these actions could potentially be grounds for a religious descrimination suit against the providers and editors of this site.

Also, when one considers that Jay Smith Thomas is one of the few persons in this country with triple citizenship (being born in India to an American citizen who happened to be a full blooded member of the Chippewa Indian tribe) Jay is an America/Indian/Native American with full rights to all three and a mixed heritage that has made the progression and of his life and subsequent success much more difficult than the average man. This dispute is simply another example of the racial discrimination and oppression that he has endured throughout the entirety of his life. Once he is made aware of your blatant and repeated violations of his secured and endowed rights to life and equity as an American citizen, much less a human being, you, and wikipedia in general would do well to think twice before deleting such a post in the future.

The lack of cogency is astounding and characteristic of very, very poor form. Legal counsel is being sought.Cstanfie 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What human right does anyone have to have an article on Wikipedia? Where is this right guaranteed?  Wikipedia is a privately-owned website, and no one has any rights here except to fork the site for their own purposes, and to leave.  Corvus cornix 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no legal right to have an article on Wikipedia for anyone. This article fail Wikipedia's test of notability, and the guideline on biographies. It has therefore been deleted several times already. Exploding Boy 19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

'A Statement from the Original Creators' Consistent with the wishes of Jay Thomas and College Church, we hereby request that this page be considered for Speedy Deletion. We regret that what started as a lighthearted issue has escalated to the current level. We would like to publicly acknowledge that any "legal threats", expressed or implied, were shallow, baseless, and inactionable and were intended to be sarcastic. This sarcasm was lost on many readers. We also retract any personal attacks, express or implied, against any of those who requested deletion of the article. We also apologize for any other people or entities, expressed or implied, who were offended by any remarks made in these posts. We have reason to believe that many Wikipedia users, including Nyttend and Rossheth, were acting with the best of intentions and regret our comments with respect to those individuals. We apologize for the colossal waste of time and energy that this has cost all involved, and we ask that out of respect for Jay Thomas and all of those associatd with these discussions that the page and all of its associated discussions be summarily deleted. Thank you. Cstanfie2 22:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)