Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Maxwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. The sources presented do not appear to satisfy our guidelines, and several of the "keep" recomendations that are based upon notability are thus unverified. At least two "keep" recomendations are given with the caveat that notability appears to arise from vanity press alone. Given this, the delete outcome is a matter of sources. This is without prejudice to a new, rewritten article that has reputable third party sources that indicates notability beyond what is indicated here. - brenneman{T}{L} 00:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: this and one other AfD were "double closed" by two admins. After discussion, the agreement was that this close would stand.
    brenneman{T}{L} 04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graham Maxwell

Vanity article, has no purpose to be a valid resource on people wanting to know about the persons life. Purpose for being there is to support the link, which is original internet research, as claimed by its author on the talk page. Ansell 21:26, 1 March 2006 Please note that on 06:31, February 28, 2006 Mushroom deleted "A. Graham Maxwell" (copyvio), which is about the same person. MyNameIsNotBob 13:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete this unsourced and POV article doesn't sufficiently verify notability MLA 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity page - simply a collection of his quotes. If he's notable, then the page needs to be about him, not what he's said Kcordina 13:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Please Explain. Take a look at this page for Billy Graham: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham. There are sections for achievements, quotes and controversy. Why can't Graham Maxwell have the same? Dr. Graham Maxwell is a more notable Adventist figure than Desmond Ford, who is listed in Wikipedia.
There is no chance that Graham Maxwell is a more notable figure than Desmond Ford. You are wrong to class him in the same level of notability. Ansell 06:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that Dr. Graham Maxwell should be honored for his contributions to Gnosticism, pantheism, moral influence theory and New Age theology. -Perspicacious 22:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
If this is so then why are you so anti all of these theories and wanting to put your POV on all of your contributions relating to this person. Ansell 06:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity page, and quotes are nn. --Terence Ong 13:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep, conspicuously notable religious/evangelical figure. So fix it. Monicasdude 16:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    What evidence do you have to back up this conclusion? Ansell 07:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but definitely re-write: This needs to become an actual encyclopedia article that references the quotes, not a collection of the quotes themselves. Maybe the quotes could be put in Wikiquote but this needs to be a bio article... —Wknight94 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unsourced vanity of dubious verifiability. Unremarkable. POV problems too. -- Krash (Talk) 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. A quick google search seems to indicate that A. Graham Maxwell's theories are are known and seriously discussed by Adventists (e.g., forum convo), which speaks for some notability. Still, I can't find any indication of exactly how notable he is—his publications appear to be from a vanity press—hence the weak qualifier. If the article is kept, a full rewrite for encyclopedic content is necessary. - Rynne 16:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Rynne, Maxwell's book, "Can God Be Trusted?" was originally published by Southern Publishing Association, Nashville, Tennessee, which is a publishing house owned and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. --Perspicacious 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The forum Rynne quoted has been conclusively found to be vanity by Perspicacious as he is Eugene Shubert, the overwhelming major contributor (and possibly website owner) to the forums. Ansell 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, per Rynne, article needs a lot of work. The lead section has a lot of POV and the rest is just quotes. The one given reference seems dubious. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; unsourced except for vanity press publications, regardless of discussion on above-mentioned forums, which are associated with him and as such are incapable of being used as a source.  RasputinAXP  c 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, it is true that Maxwell is known with in Adventism. I am concerned though that the user who started this page will be unable to refrain from editing this page to their own POV and as such the article will never be encyclopedic. -Fermion 21:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep. The first thing I'd like to say is that I've already added four powerful references to the article A. Graham Maxwell. Compare that to the six references supporting the much longer article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventists (two of which are mine).
Second: If someone is interested in expanding the article by writing on the upbringing of A. Graham Maxwell and his early life, they are very welcome to do so. Realize, of course, that many people are only remembered for their life's work and goals, not lesser experiences. Joseph Goebbels is known best for being Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels
At least for me, I am more interested in those details about Goebbels. And while some persons don't want to see evidence documenting the "final solution," I don't mind someone making a Wikipedia article out of it.
According to everything I know, the only encyclopedic significance of Graham Maxwell is the schism he has created in the Seventh-day Adventist church:
"A faction in the church rejects the historic Christian belief that Christ died vicariously for our sins and accepts, instead, the controversial theology of A. Graham Maxwell." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventists
This is undeniable. --Perspicacious 03:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Perspicacious, most of your arguments make little to no sense. The quote from the Seventh-day Adventist page is one that you put there, and thus cannot be used to justify your case. -Fermion 06:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep:, but only if someone rewrites it so it is a good entry. Jabencarsey 07:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this article gets its size from the unnecessary quote from [1] which does nothing to tell the reader in an encyclopedic manner. More info may be found here -- Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Perspicacious, you can not simply quote something you wrote, and the say it is undeniable. That is beyond reasonable. MyNameIsNotBob 09:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
NotBob, before my response was edited by someone else, I had many bulleted statements. My separate bulleted remark, "This is undeniable" applied to the entirety of my response and I meant by it that every detail of my response was factual and true. --Perspicacious 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Each bullet point represents a vote. You can only have one vote, putting more than that means we have to disregard your contribution to the voting process as you have not followed the standard method. Ansell 22:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A Comment That Proves Indisputable Notability: Here is a great quote documenting why A. Graham Maxwell is a notable figure: In reference to Christ's atonement and the Division of Religion at Loma Linda University, David P. McMahon wrote, "In this department are those who repudiate the historic Christian doctrine of the substitutionary atonement in order to embrace 'the moral influence theory.' In fact, the moral influence theory has widely permeated West-Coast American Adventism. It has such a stranglehold on the church's principal financial base that the leaders of the church appear paralyzed and frightened to touch it." David P. McMahon, Ellet Joseph Waggoner: The Myth and the Man, p. last. - In the cited references, Maxwell admits that he is accused of teaching the moral influence theory. --Perspicacious 12:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Could you please explain in more detail Maxwell's contributions to the moral influence theory (either theologically or in relation to its spread in the Adventist Church)? Or even better, add that explanation to the article? I can't tell how the two are related, since moral influence theory is not mentioned in the body of Graham Maxwell, nor is Maxwell mentioned in Atonement (Moral influence view). If moral influence theory is Maxwell's claim to notability, the connection between the two must be made much clearer. - Rynne 16:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I am very happy to comply. Thank you Rynne for that wonderful request. It gave me an excellent idea. I need to write a section for the article called Graham Maxwell's Contribution to Theology. I now see what I have to write as being divided into three parts: A. Graham Maxwell's contribution to
1. Second Century Gnosticism
2. Medieval Moral Influence Theory
3. The New Age Interpretation of the Cross
I expect to have time to complete this task this weekend. Hopefully, I can finish it before the censors decide to delete the entire page. --Perspicacious 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that wikipedia is not a democracy. It also is not censored. Please do not confuse this process with censorship. Ansell 23:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonesense page. Article's subject is of minimal influence. Wikiothius 06:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC) -
How do you know that? --Perspicacious 23:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the same way as he does simply because I can't find any non-Eugene Shubert/aka. User:Perspicacious references to him that actually specifically say he contributed something major to any part of adventism. Combined with the fact that you can't provide these, obviously, widespread issues to us in terms that we accept as encyclopedic influence and significance, means that someone else who is not deep into adventism will know, or ever care, about these issues. Wikipedia needs to be interesting to people in 100 years time as well. Ansell 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This page does not meet WP:BIO. Woldo 08:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
You're joking. See this category: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." Graham Maxwell's book, "Can God Be Trusted?" was acclaimed as the denominational book of the year. http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/10.html The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a big denomination. -Perspicacious 23:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Try to assume the good faith of other editors. I doubt Woldo was kidding around when he made this comment. I admit believe that the article doesn't exactly prove on its own that it meets WP:BIO MyNameIsNotBob 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
As per MyNameIsNotBob, the main article does not in itself prove that it meets WP:BIO Woldo 08:05, 6 March 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.

[edit] Additional Sources Referencing Graham Maxwell as a Noteworthy Schismatic in the Seventh-day Adventist Church

1. Desmond and Gillian Ford, (1982) The Adventist Crisis of Spiritual Identity pp. 124, 141, 142.

[Chapter 9 in this reference is titled Enquiry's Progress. Here, Gillian Ford tells a story of an Adventist journey written in the style of the classic book Pilgrim's Progress. The story begins as follows]:

An earnest seeker for truth, Enquiry was his name, was wandering through a certain country, looking for sign-posts along the way. In the midst of a desert, he saw afar off a man seated on a rock with his head in his hands. "Maybe this man can direct me to some more fertile place," thought he to himself and hastened towards him.

"Good-day friend. My name's Enquiry, and I am seeking for the garment which will protect me in the coming earthquake. Can you help me?"

The man seated on the rock, Confused was his name, sighed deeply and wrung his hands.

"I wish I could, sir, but I need help myself. For I too have heard that there's an earthquake coming. They say that it's already rumbling, and folks round here are afraid that the whole town will be destroyed."

[Enquiry and Confused gather up their belongings and set off to travel along the highway. Here's the part I like. They arrive inevitably at Maxwell's house].

As they trudged south, they came to a place called Pretty Hill, and seeing a light, thought to ask for rest that night. They approached timidly, fearing that they might be turned away, but were warmly greeted from afar off by two figures on the porch who greeted them most cordially, and welcomed them like brothers.

Tender-heart: "Our names are Love-alone and Tender-heart. There are no words used in this house such as blood, or wrath, or penalty, or punish, or propitiate. We teach that the architect can be trusted."

Enquiry and Confused found the hosts most congenial, the stay most comfortable, the beds soft and the food easy to digest. And as they talked together, Confused especially felt at ease, for he had often been told that the architect was a stern judge, ready to throw a ton of bricks at all who displease him. Thus he had grown up afraid of him. But Enquiry grew very quiet and thoughtful, and caused Confused to ask if all was well.

Enquiry: "It seems to me that I could not really trust a God who took evil lightly and did not punish those who murdered, stole and dealt unjustly. The blueprint speaks with those words of which you do not approve."

Love-alone: "But those words are mere figures of speech. For though the blueprint speaks of judgment—such judgment men bring on themselves. They reap what they sow. The architect himself does not act out in judgment, because he is love and cannot act against himself. As for wrath—it is merely that the architect gives up on men, when after much patient coaxing, he cannot win them. And blood and penalty! Did the son of the architect have to die to 'pay for our sins'? We say not. It was to show that he loved us so much that he would die to prove it.

2. http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/Shea.htm

3. Weber, Martin. (1994) Who's Got the Truth, Making sense out of five different Adventist gospels, pp. 15-34.

Here are some pertinent quotes:

"Obviously, all of these spiritual leaders have much to contribute in terms of gospel truth, or they wouldn't have their large followings of thoughtful Seventh-day Adventists." p. 5.

"Reading Servants or Friends makes obvious why Graham Maxwell is so popular with thousands of thoughtful Adventists." p. 15.

"I wish I could accommodate Dr. Maxwell's desire to be left out of this book, but because his view are cherished by thousands of Adventists, I would be remiss not to consider them worthy of inclusion in this analysis. And so I have proceeded without Dr. Maxwell's participation."

"He feels so strongly that I should not include him in these pages that he contacted the denominational publishing house with which I was arranging to print this book. He asked that they not publish it if it includes my chapter about him. Out of respect for his wishes, the book editors there complied with his request. Consequently, I am publishing this book personally with the Home Study International Press."

"To summarize: The name Graham Maxwell is well-known and beloved by Adventist around the world; he is too significant a thought leader to ignore." p. 33.

4. David P. McMahon wrote in his book, Ellet Joseph Waggoner: The Myth and the Man, in reference to Christ's atonement and the Division of Religion at Loma Linda University, and I quote: "In this department are those who repudiate the historic Christian doctrine of the substitutionary atonement in order to embrace 'the moral influence theory.' In fact, the moral influence theory has widely permeated West-Coast American Adventism. It has such a stranglehold on the church's principal financial base that the leaders of the church appear paralyzed and frightened to touch it." p. last.

5. http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/spiritualism.htm#Maxwell

6. http://www.sdadefend.com/BattleOverTruth.htm:

GOD WILL NOT KILL THE WICKED—The present author’s research study, The Terrible Storm, is the most complete collection of Bible-Spirit of Prophecy material on this subject. Revelation 14:9-10 predicts a terrible storm of God’s wrath is soon to fall upon the incorrigibly wicked. But Satan wants the Third Angel’s Message repudiated in the minds of men. In place of it, he substitutes a different message: “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you go to heaven anyway.”

In spite of a multitude of clear statements in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, for over two decades Mike Clute taught the false doctrine that God never has, and never will, execute capital punishment on the wicked. In recent years Mike went into universalism, the teaching that none of the wicked will ever die. That evil teaching is solidly denounced in Great Controversy, 537-539.

This error, which Paul Heubach used to teach in the 1950s and 1960s at La Sierra and Walla Walla (he was the one who taught it to Mike), is being taught by Graham Maxwell of Loma Linda University (Graham Maxwell, Servants or Friends? Another Look at God, 1992). Maxwell says he has a “matured” view of God, which helps him see that the “many references in the Bible to God’s destruction of the wicked” must be understood as God’s “just using a figure of speech.” --Perspicacious 05:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)