Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neal Weaver

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 No consensus to delete. Keep --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neal Weaver

  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 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. SycthosTalk 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The president of a diploma mill, posted by a student there.

  • Delete. A.J.A. 05:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Editor has nominated 8 Christian biography entries for deletion, today. It's hard to assume good faith. Neal Weaver is the president of Louisiana Baptist University. Obviously, keep. --Jason Gastrich 05:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    The only thing obvious is that you would want to keep it. --Q —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.5 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 January 2006
    Watch Out Potential branchstacking : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].Blnguyen 02:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    And author has created dozens of articles on complete nonentities, largely connected to this diploma mill. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    So, are AfDs to be top-secret now or something? This one doesn't seem worth throwing in my vote, but I don't see a problem with telling people of an ongoing vote. Rogue 9 10:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Editor's number of deletion nominations is not an indicator of bad faith simply because it bothers another editor. Weaver is the President of a college with a Wiki entry--not unreasonable to keep, but alleged acts that might make him notable as a group are unverified and claimed without citation. Vote changed. - WarriorScribe 05:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    comment question being whether merely being the president of a college warrants a separate article.Mark K. Bilbo 19:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    You're right...I was a tad hasty in writing the comment and left off some stuff. Assuming that the information in the article is correct, I think that it's possible that Weaver is trying to turn LBU into a more reputable institution. His policies probably had a hand in student growth. Mind you, personally, I still think it's a diploma mill, but less because they sell diplomas and more because they don't really educate anyone. If he had as much to do with the rewriting of the minimum educational standards for Ohio Christian schools, that might qualify, along with his presiding over a pretty significant growth of the Gospel Music Network. All of those things together might be reasonably notable, if true. It's just occurred to me, however, that if someone wrote those kinds of things about someone Gastrich didn't like, he'd demand a "citation." We've seen that enough times. If Gastrich doesn't like or doesn't agree with the comments or information, he demands citations, yet posts most of his claims about his personal heroes without providing much in the way of proof. There are no citations for any of the claims about Weaver. I'm convinced. Dump it. - WarriorScribe 02:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. hius qualifications are from a diploma mill. self-styled religious leader.Blnguyen 06:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough. A list of publications would be a big improvement. Logophile 07:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. President of the LBU is perhaps a measure of notability for some, though I personally disagree that being at the head of a notable organisation makes one notable oneself. Very little proof that any of the article's other claims are true or notable, unsurprising given his credentials. --Malthusian (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being a President of a university does not make one notable. --Pierremenard 11:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable president of a degree-by-mail diploma mill. And just a comment ... it's kind of funny how I keep running into Jason Gastrich. We first met on talk.origins, then I talked to him on AIM, then we ran into each here on evolution. He's a nice enough guy; I just don't think the subject of this article he created is notable. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 16:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Easy Delete - not notable, the LBU article contains sufficient information about him. -Harvestdancer 17:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Mark K. Bilbo 19:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article was created by Jason Gastrich to promote his school as a mainstream institution. This is only one of around 10 articles he created promoting his religion/degree/school. See List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people. --Q —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.5 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 January 2006
  • Strong keep President of a university, and published author B.ellis 21:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WarriorScribe, but I would appreciate it if the author of this article could provide references for the two books and "numerous articles" written by this figure. Hall Monitor 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete is president of an "unaccredited institute of higher learning" (i.e. a diploma mill), not a university Author is the infamous Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this and award the closing admin a degree from the institution for his efforts. Eusebeus 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone but Gastrich and his socks. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--nixie 04:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Published author, president of a uni, what more do we need? If you guys keep it up, wikipedia will only have a few dosen articles! Brokenfrog 20:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being an official for a non-accredited university isn't sufficient claim for notability, and the Library of Congress has no record of him as an author. -Colin Kimbrell 21:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep university-related topics are notable. Cynical 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into main institution article if notable enough to mention, otherwise delete. bcatt 22:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Devein 23:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 23:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per nom... because being the President of, what seems to be a notable non-accredited (fringe) school, I think would qualify one as notable. Although it looks as though it will be deleted, I may appeal this. So what if LOC doesn't have him as an author? I think it important to have articles on key officials of schools/school wannabes/scams alike. Either way, he seems notable enough. - RoyBoy 800 03:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    If it is kept for that reason it should be merged with LBU. Afterall other than LBU's link at the bottom there are no sources. As for the place where he got 3 out of 4 of his non-LBU related degrees (Baptist Christian University is LBU), do a search for that school, "Eastern Baptist Institute." That will tell you something about this person. As for the Korean awards, ect. there are no sources. The claims about his church are uncited. Outside of the figures LBU gives we don't know how many people this guy is notable to. More importantly if LBU barely escaped its own deletion, why should its "President" who has 5 unaccredited degrees, unknown books/readers and uncited awards get his own. Yes, it is important to have some facts about the "President," but if this article is only to be a selling point for LBU/LBU related, relevant facts should be merged the rest deleted. ---Filler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.5 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 20 January 2006
    Note, this semi-unsigned comment, and the earlier vote and comment made above by "Q" on January 18 share the same IP address. Anonymous comments are welcome, but please be aware that votes made by anonymous edits tend to carry less weight by the closing admin. In other words, please log in or create an account. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    I appreciate (and encourage) your attention to detail, but I'm the Admin who locked the LBU article and had the distinct pleasure of wading through the NewsGroupish debating/bickering to try and get it moving forward. So I'm familiar with the situation... too familiar. :"D You're making a good case for a merge, but I felt my vote here needed to be strong enough to stem the tide... as misguided as that was. It will likely be merged; by me. RoyBoy 800 08:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is not very notable, but the article can still be of use if kept NPOV. For me, limited notability doesn't not automatically warrant deletion. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If WikiMedia Foundation sets up a fully linked in WikiBiography, I would support moving these minor notables over to it. Until then, they have enough connection with people, organizations, and issues to keep around. --StuffOfInterest 12:46, 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 19:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep Might need a bit of cleaning up, but looks appropiate for a Wikipedia article. Article is informative, subject is notable. Is someone trying to wipe the name LBU off the face of the earth? - The Great Gavini lobster telephone
  • Strong Keep This is a perfectly viable encyclopedia article on a public institution that could very well be the subject of someone's research in the future. In such an event, wikipedia would come in handy. That is what wikipedia is for. I haven't heard a single good argument to why this should be deleted. When you found a university, you can post about its notaries too. Until then, stfu. Itake 15:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. Justin Eiler 16:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep President of a University (whether or not is a "Diploma Mill" is irrelevant. Discuss such in Article or fix POV), Published AuthorWynler 17:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: How do you know that he is a published author? The piece doesn't list any works by him, and I can't find any outside sources listing any, either. He's not listed in the catalog of the Library of Congress, and the only two books by a "Neal Weaver" listed on Amazon both seem unlikely. One is a dissertation on university presidents in Oklahoma written in 2005[8], and the other is a small press biography of an orchestral conductor in Texas [9]. -Colin Kimbrell 19:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep same as above. --Yonghokim 17:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see little reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough. Lerner 18:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep barely squeeks by WP:BIO imo.  ALKIVAR™ 18:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep--Hayson 21:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Assuming this article and the one on Louisiana Baptist University are accurate (and I note a dispute there), he's clearly notable. Resolve the accuracy disputes of course, then come back here if he's a fraud (but I doubt it). Andrewa 22:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neither diploma mills nor their presidents warrant articles. Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight merge into Louisiana Baptist University. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. article is compact, theme is interesting. Gubbubu 23:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep FeloniousMonk, notability is the criteria at hand, not a person's background.the1physicist 23:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ATTENTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"

  • Strong Keep - The Neokid Talk 09:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Itake 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There;s nothing wrong with calling people who want to delete this as having "bad faith"? Please that's pressuring a certain preception to the reader who clicks on the link. BTW I just check the last 8 posts you made all to keep the links in the email above... Arbustoo 02:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
To whom are you referring? Jim62sch 02:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough --Vizcarra 01:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteJim62sch 02:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Arbustoo 02:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. --Spondoolicks 20:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 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 04:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Louisiana Baptist University. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into main article. The unaccredited university is notable enough to have its own article. Its president is not. Crunch 12:09, 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.