Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Gothard

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. To produce any other result would require discounting of raw votes on such a massive scale that I can't possibly countenance it. -Splash^talk 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Gothard

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk • contribs), Wiggins2 (talk • contribs). 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 Wikipedia: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 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This guy seems mainly notable because he is leader of the Institute in Basic Life Principles. Which, it turns out, is mainly notable because it's run by... well, you can see where this is headed. I would say merge to the IBLP article but I have a suspicion that both should be merged to the bitbucket. No, just for a change, this one was not created by Jason Gastrich, just one of a number of poeple with tenuous claims to notability from the Louisiana Baptist University alumni list. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 01:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge This guy, unfortunately, has a fair number of followers. I've heard there used to be some in my own church until they heard Gothard condemned beards and the pastor refused to shave. A.J.A. 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Condemned beards? It's not just a more, like... "the clean-shaven appearance is nice" sort of thing? ^^ Weien 04:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, he condemns beards EXCEPT for those who are adherents to the Mennonite faith. My dad had to ask if he could keep his mustache when we were in ATI. Dick Clark 15:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Reply

Deletion? Well, I think Bill Gothard is more the "founder" of IBLP than anything, though you're right about it being his foremost, um, "item of achievement," so to speak. But while the Institute in Basic Life Principles is unofficially aka the "Bill Gothard thing," it's something that has reached millions of people (over 2.5 million have attended IBLP's various Seminars alone) and is still an important thing to many on a daily basis. The Institute is relatively huge, all things considered. But even if the main thing about Gothard is IBLP and vice versa, does that by itself warrant deletion (yea, newbie here)? True that both articles do overlap significantly though, particularly in the many areas that stress the "highly controversial" aspects of Bill Gothard and IBLP.

On another topic, maybe both articles should just be left alive solely because of how much work various Wikipedians have put into them already? Or is there another reason for deletion that I'm missing? Thanks for any clarification-- Weien 04:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Blnguyen 04:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As noted above, this guy has a very large following, including quite a few people I personally know. I am not one of them, but we should base inclusion or deletion on the person's notability--not whether we like him or not. Logophile 07:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 50k google hits. I think rather than going on a crusade of afds against these articles, it would have been better to put disputed tags on them -- Astrokey44|talk 11:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Institute in Basic Life Principles since they are essentially the same article, and have affected a significant number of peoples' lives. Sliggy 13:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Huge amount of material on this guy via Google. Someone going to a conference where he is a speaker is likely to read an article like this. Use it to give the whole story rather than just blanking it. --StuffOfInterest 13:42, 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 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, covered in Christianity Today, a notable magazine. --badlydrawnjeff 14:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, failing that Keep. This person seems rather more notable and the article a little more balanced than some of the others nominated. --kingboyk 15:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In light of the following comment, I would suggest that any merger should be into this article, since Mr Gothard seems to be more notable than his Institute in Basic Life Principles. Alternatively, I'm quite happy for the article just to be kept if that's the concensus. --kingboyk 18:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with that. I can see that I have got this the wrong way round, it is indeed the organisation which is the sideline. I still don't see we need two articles, I think this will be a keep so I'll go for a merge at the end. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 00:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, anti-Merge, Since Gothard has caroused with Boris Yeltsin (wouldn't include this in the article as it is original research, but I saw him shake hands with Yeltsin on stage at the '92 ATIA conference in Knoxville when ATIA assumed responsibility for some public schools in Moscow), has personally led numerous seminars with >15k attendees, and has been instrumental in the publishing of numerous books, periodicals, and homeschool curricula. As someone who considers himself a "victim" of Gothard's legalism, I do have a POV on this (which I would be remiss in omitting). Nonetheless, I think Gothard's notability is virtually unquestionable. Dick Clark 15:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would also add that the IBLP largely emerged to take advantage of the popularity generated by Gothard's "chalk talks" (where he speaks as he is drawing a landscape of some sort, and then, as a visual reinforcement of his conclusion to the talk, changes the lighting to reveal some sort of Christian imagery). IBLP's "Basic" seminars in later years usually featured a video of Gothard speaking if he was unavailable (which was more frequently the case as the Basic seminars in became more popular)Dick Clark 19:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, anti-Merge. Gothard is a very recognizable figure within Christian fundamentalist circles, and his influence is quite broad and controversial. (I would predict that a random poll would find more people recognize Bill Gothard by name than any of his related organizations.) You would not merge Pat Robertson with the 700 Club, since the person is as newsworthy as the organization, sometimes more so. Similar thing here, as Gothard has a broader influence than just IBLP.--Gandalf2000 20:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per everyone else. Hall Monitor 21:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't create this entry (just like the nominator said). Besides your word, what makes Gothard non-notable? --Jason Gastrich 07:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Arbustoo 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable within the fundamentalist Christian world as an activist for extreme right-wing values and as an accused cult leader. Admittedly a niche personality, but not an insignificant one. Haikupoet 04:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems notable enough. -- DS1953 ^talk 06:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Gothard is extremely notable for his seminars and teachings. He's been in the national news and is highly regarded in evangelical circles. --Jason Gastrich 07:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Gothard and the IBLP have had a major influence in Christian fundamentalist circles and beyond, since the 70s. While a merge would make things neater, we really need both articles just as Gandalf noted above. --DDerby-(talk) 16:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, much as would like to see more citations. This is notable enough. Grandmasterka 21:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, off you go. Stifle 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This guy has quite a web presence, news references, even a number of anti-Gothard campaigns, websites, etc. I don't support him or his ilk, but he is a considerable somebody in several circles. The fact that Jason Gastrich (or his ilk) promotes/advocates this article should have no bearing its appropriateness. If he (Gastrich) is abusing the system, I would support efforts to deal with his abuse. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Not just because I support him as a Christian, but also because he's well known.--ViolinGirl^♪ 13:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would a fan of John Piper support Bill Gothard? I don't understand. A.J.A. 00:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The guy is sure controversial, also among Christians, but that's doesn't make him not noteworthy, on the contrary. There has even a 380 page book been written about him: Veinot, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life which has 70 customer reviews at amazon.com and was worth an article for ChristianityToday. apologeticsindex.org gives him and his institute a whole page, rickross.com has an articles collection on him, So an article in Wikipedia is deserved but needs to be watched closely for NPOV. --Irmgard 00:15, 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.