Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Hyles Controversy

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 MERGE to Jack Hyles. Babajobu 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Hyles Controversy

Delete Not appropriate for an encyclopedia San Saba 17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a webspace provider for cataloguing grievances.--Isotope23 17:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy should be put on the article page not just deleted. Arbustoo 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo - Please stop valdalizing Wikis that deal with Jack Hyles and Hyles Anderson College. If you cannot learn to write in a Neutral Point of View, then your edits are just a waste of everyone's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)

Once again Mr. Board of Directors for Hyles college, I did not write the article. I am merely trying to undo your POV fork. You have been banned from Wikipedia for your behavior. Arbustoo 05:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with the Jack Hyles article. The issues presented were significant to the man's ministry. They are well sourced and referenced. --Awcga 18:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Jack Hyles is not so long that a separate article is required for opposing views. Fix POV issues and merge to Jack Hyles. --Craig Stuntz 17:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, looking over the main Jack Hyles page, it appears this POV fork is the result of edit wars there. POV fork is only appropriate in reference to large articles that will benefit from branching off. Jack Hyles is barely a stub and this fork appears to be an "out of sight, out of mind" attempt to avoid confrontation. If these claims are WP:V and can be legitimately sourced without being WP:OR, then protest by those who don't want this information posted in the main Jack Hyles should be ignored and continued reverts by them subject to censure. If, on the other hand, this information is not WP:V or violates WP:NOR, it doesn't even belong on a fork.--Isotope23 19:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Isotope23. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge relevant info to Jack Hyles, with care for NPOV. NickelShoe 22:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As-Is, The Jack Hyles Wiki was originally hijacked by a small and dedicated group of anti-Hyles persons who want everyone to think that their accusations are "significant to this man's ministry" and that they are "well sourced and referenced". Their constant vandalism of the main Jack Hyles Wiki caused a wiki-war. A consensus solution was reached whereby this fork article was created. This solution is consistant with Wiki guidelines on article forking (POV fork) which states, "As Wikipedia articles grow, they often need to be segmented, or branched, into manageable parts. This is an accepted premise for forking an article, and the nature of that split more often depends upon consensus — e.g. a "Criticism of" article may be justified if there is enough (or going to be enough) material to justify a separate article..." Go ahead and delete this article and merge these outrageous accusations into the main Jack Hyles Wiki, but you will surely enter right back into the wiki war again, which no one wants. - GeorgeS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment, again... this seems to be a fork that is there strictly to create an "out of sight out of mind" scenario. The main article has not grown enough to merit a fork. To quote POV fork: "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion." As I said above, if the criticisms of Mr. Hyles are If these claims are WP:V and can be legitimately sourced without being WP:OR, they should stay in the article and anyone who initiates an edit war by repeatedly deleting material should be warned and then banned if they continue. Conversely, if the criticisms are not WP:V or violate WP:NOR then they do not belong on Wikipedia at all and anyone who repeatedly adds this information should be warned and then banned if they continue. Forking just to keep 2 opposing sides from having to work together is, in my opinion, not a supported reason for a fork and is bad precedent. You kids will have to learn to play nicely together.--Isotope23 17:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to Comment, The point is that we came to a consensus solution here and most seemed to be happy with it, and most thought it was an equitable solution and it ended the wiki-war, or at least it was a temporary "cease-fire". The truth is that there is equal Wikipedia guidelines for BOTH positions (deletion vs. forking). The forking solution will work; deleting this fork will only add fuel to the fire on both sides of this issue. From the last wiki-war, it's apparent that banning IP addresses is not the solution, since both parties seem to have an abundance of methodologies at their disposal for avoiding such control schemes. Please allow me to ask for YOUR solution to this problem-- allowing the anti-Hyles people to place their extremely biased and unproven pet theories and character assassinations on the main Jack Hyles Wiki is NOT a solution that will work without major challenges. The majority of the anti-Hyles editors have proven time and time again that they CANNOT write in a Neutral Point of View on this subject. -GeorgeS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)

• • Comment, my solution is for everyone to read WP:NOT, use the talk page to come to consensus, source their edits (and not with forums or people's personal websites... with factual evidence), and work together to create an article that is NPOV. Again, this is how things are done on countless articles on Wikipedia every day.--Isotope23 18:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow POV forks, you should familiarize yourself with the resource. If something is sourced and murder allegations are part of his past it should be included on the main article. Just because his supporters disagree that doesn't give them the right to take it off the page as it never happened. Arbustoo 04:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo, perhaps YOU should familiarize yourself with the resource. A fork is clearly acceptible when there is enough material to support it. (Try reading the comments above and checking out the Wikipedia guidelines on forking) AND WHAT THE HECK is this stuff about "MURDER ACCUSATIONS"?? See folks, this crowd just keeps piling on false accusation on false accusation, tell a lie long enough and eventually it makes it into the Wiki. That's crap, sir. - GeorgeS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)

There is not enough material to support a fork in this case, neither article is anything like big enough for that. Addition of rubbish is not a reason for forking (otherwise we'd have hundreds of articles on old smirky by now) - and addition of verifiable material offensive to fans of the subject is equally not grounds for forking. Merge what is verifiable, and if necessary apply protection to prevent addition of unsubstantiated allegations. Guy 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No POV forks. Arbustoo 01:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to articles on school and man accordingly. This is clearly a POV fork. Arbustoo 03:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Jack Hyles. A POV fork here is not acceptable and is clearly meant to hide criticism. Superm401 - Talk 06:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

*Keep it here Well, all I can say is that if you rabid Hyles-haters don't abide by Wikipedia's rule of Neutral Point of View, you're edits will be deleted asap; and placing your own personal web site as a "source" is not valid, neither is an obscure rant from a lunatic's blog a valid "source"... if you have valid sources from accepted media or news outlets, that is what makes a solid Wiki. Personally, I think it's a waste of your time, since most of you have proven that you are incapable of writing in NPV style and all the time you spend posting obviously biased trash will be deleted in time due to your non-compliance with Wikipedia policy. -GeorgeS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)

George, only one vote per person. Arbustoo 01:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Delete move verifiable criticism back to the Jack Hyles page. As some above mentioned this is clearly an out of sight, out of mind page. There is no good reason for this fork given the small size of the Jack Hyles article. David D. (Talk) 22:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge what's verifiable to Jack Hyles. It's not over large. Note that the Hitler article has also been "hijacked" by anti-Hitler editors - Hyles is not Hitler, but maybe he is less wonderful than his friends would ahve you believe. Guy 23:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment GeorgeS (User talk:69.214.212.201) has been permanently blocked for making two threats and vandalism related to the Jack Hyles articles. He also revealed himself as a board member of the college (see school talk page), who admittedly wants a certain type of representation of the school/founders on Wikipedia. Arbustoo 04:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. mikka (t) 09:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Guy. Sandstein 09:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Jack Hyles. Capitalistroadster 10:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge --Terence Ong 11:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete; this seems to have been created simply to avoid disagreement at Jack Hyles — not a good reason for an article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment On further consideration I agree with Mel. This should be merged then deleted. This will prevent criticism from being shifted back on the page; as one can tell by looking at the heated debate at the main article. Arbustoo 20:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to article on Jack Hyles and trim any non-Jack Hyles allegations --Ruby 22:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Jack Hyles. This is a POV fork. Not good. Stifle 19:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Jack Hyles article. Bad POV fork. No biscuit. Herostratus 18:16, 22 February 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.