Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy DeYoung

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 --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy DeYoung

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone 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 among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

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 01:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

While it's good to know that the subject's webmaster approves his bio to appear here, it woudl be better if there were some evidence of actual notability per WP:BLP. As it stands what we have here is: he's an evangelist. He evangelises. Here are some of the places he's evangelised. Did we mention he's an evangelist? Seriously, I can't understand what this is doing on the 'pedia. Oh, wait - he's an alumnus of... yes, you guessed it! Louisiana Baptist University. Creator and (save for the odd bot and various tags) pretty much sole editor is an anon with little other history. In the end I read this biography in some detail and still don't know what he's supposed to be notable for. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 01:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. First rate spam IMMHO. I particularly liked "he facilitates Christians to see where they are in God’s timetable and encourage them to ready themselves for Christ’s imminent return". Moriori 01:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vanity spam. I am seriously getting annoyed with Jason Gastrich's attempts to flood Wikipedia with articles of Christianity. I have nothing against Christianity, but he clearly knows that WP:VAIN takes priority. Yet, Jason relentlessly creates non-notable articles for his organization Wiki 4 Christ and refers others to influence the AfD votes, others who don't understand the entire situation. I suggest all of you take a good look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination) as well. Sycthos^Talk 02:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 02:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 02:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley 03:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn vanity diploma mill self awarded pHd. Blnguyen 04:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 05:16Z
• Keep. Notable enough. By the way, I do not know Jason Gastrich and have had no communication with him whatsoever. Neither am I directly involved with these people or their school, although I am vaguely familiar with some of them and with their work. Logophile 07:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He is somewhat more notable than a lot of the people on the LBU list, but I think he falls short. Such relatively obscure figure need, I think, a little less reliance on clique-cruft, thought some of the figures on the list, as in the Chuck Missler deletion debate, do seem to show themselves worthy. KrazyCaley 07:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep has tv and radio shows, interviewed international leaders, 500 google hits. Though needs severe editing to get rid of POV phrases like "As a result of this God-given desire of his heart". -- Astrokey44|talk 11:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as vanity. Who's joining me in Wiki4Satan? --Deiz 12:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If for no other reason than to show how much collective life religous zealotry sucks out of the world. --StuffOfInterest 13:39, 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 20:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• As much as I didn't want to vote this way, keep. He has a syndicated radio program that reaches a number of states [1], and has done his thing worldwide. That's fairly notable for me. --badlydrawnjeff 14:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; while some of the claims to notability might warrant inclusion (best-selling author), I can not verify them. Peyna 16:07, 20 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)
• Keep. I agree with the statement that the article needs editing, to better reflect NPOV, but he should be represented in a comprehensive encyclopedia -- the TV show "Day of Discovery" is shown every week on our CBS affiliate station, with him as a major contributor.[2]1diot 18:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Once again, folks, the stuff in the article is almost entirely unverifiable. The claims there are extremely non-specific, and the little bit about WNYM I haven't been able to verify. (The station has had several incarnations.) If someone can put SPECIFIC AND NOTABLE CLAIMS in the article that I can verify, let me know and I <might> consider changing my vote. Grandmasterka 21:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There may be a kernel of verifiable info in there somewhere but as the article stands it's hard to find. Crunch 22:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete unnotable. Arbustoo 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cyde Weys 02:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs a clean up, but I think we can do it without deleting it... 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 04:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...
  • 'I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same', 'Two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. ' As somebody who has voted to delete most of the nominated articles, I take great offence at that sweeping and hugely incorrect generalisation. I vote delete on issues of vanity, non-NPOV, non notability and sockpuppeteering and will continue to do so. --kingboyk 13:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Exactly my point. This shouldn't be about religion, only about what's best for wikipedia... Doesn't anyone actually read what I've written? Sigh..... Spawn Man 02:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --kingboyk 13:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Delete. DeYoung is unnotable and there are no sources to demonstrate that he meets Wikipedia standards of notability. Arbustoo 00:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am the user that put this bio up in the first place. Dr. DeYoung is a notable speaker. He is the cohost on Day of Discovery, which is a nation-wide show. He is heard on over 1000 radio stations in North America. He is a published author, a radio talk-show host, a television cohost , and, yes, an evangelist. I am not a sock-puppet of anyone. My name is Chad Smith - I haven't added a lot of stuff, that's true, but I'm a real person. If you check the links in the article, you'll see that the info is on the up and up. If you think the links have been put up to support a fake article, check the web archive for them. Dr. DeYoung has a large number of listeners, his web site gets tens of thousands of visitors per month. Just because you haven't heard of him, doesn't mean he's not notable. There are plenty of notable people in fields that are outside my interests that deserve to be on Wikipedia. The same is true for each of us. Dr. DeYoung is in the Pre-Trib Study Group that Tim LaHaye started, as in the coauthor of the Left Behind series. Is Tim LaHaye in the Wikipedia? Yes. Granted, Tim LaHaye has more mainstream success, but Tim LaHaye thinks enough of Dr. DeYoung to include his notes in the Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible, in which Dr. DeYoung's is cited as a contributor, and has an entire article included. His article is on page 973 and is entitled "Israel Today" if you'd like to go to a bookstore and check it out, and the list of contributors in the front shows that this is the same Dr. Jimmy DeYoung of Shofar Communications that I am referring to in this article. It may be true that this article should be cleaned up. It was my first addition of an article, and only the 3rd or 4th one I've worked on. But please don't remove it. I don't even know who this Jason person is. I've gone through it a little bit and tired to clean it up, and make it more acceptable for Wikipedia. I'm sure more work can be done, but I wanted to at least include some of the verification sources to help keep it on the Wikipedia. Chad78.

• Delete. Vanity, non-NPOV, non notability. This reads like a press release, not an encyclopedia entry. 12.210.85.52 02:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (sorry, hadn't logged in yet.) Zen611 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Being the co-host of a syndicated TV show (even a fringe one) is sufficient notability to my mind. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:48, 23 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.