Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay S. Thomas

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 was delete. Also author requests deletion. —Centrx→talk • 20:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jay S. Thomas

Jay S. Thomas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable minister; article on him was already speedily deleted twice today under the name Jay Smith Thomas Nyttend 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

<personal attack deleted - Corvus cornix 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)>

I think that I have found the source of this dispute and the reason that this article was deleted. Though it tends to be colored in terms of "wiki guidelines" which is an ironic term in and of itself, I truly believe that this is a case of both religious persecution and racial discrimination. With regard to religion, it is obvious that the existence of reformed evangelical Christian content would be shunned by the comprehensively secular bias of such a place such a wikipedia, thus making you all just as controversial and fifth column as the creator/editors of conserapedia. Thusly, considering the blatant refusal to allow cited and relevant information concerning legitimate Christian leaders and legitimate Christian content, these actions could potentially be grounds for a religious descrimination suit against the providers and editors of this site.

Also, when one considers that Jay Smith Thomas is one of the few persons in this country with triple citizenship (being born in India to an American citizen who happened to be a full blooded member of the Chippewa Indian tribe) Jay is an America/Indian/Native American with full rights to all three and a mixed heritage that has made the progression and of his life and subsequent success much more difficult than the average man. This dispute is simply another example of the racial discrimination and oppression that he has endured throughout the entirety of his life. Once he is made aware of your blatant and repeated violations of his secured and endowed rights to life and equity as an American citizen, much less a human being, you, and wikipedia in general would do well to think twice before deleting such a post in the future.

The lack of cogency is astounding and characteristic of very, very poor form. Legal counsel is being sought.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstanfie (talk • contribs) Corvus cornix 17:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Corvus cornix 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete-The only sources are those close to the subject of the article, and there is no asserion of notability other than 'he works for a church that a magazine said was quite important'.--Rossheth | Talk to me 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Further clarification- does not meet the `The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject' clause of WP:BIO. The opinion piece quoted is insufficient, since it doesn't deal exclusively with the subject, and is in any case an opinion piece.--Rossheth | Talk to me 17:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Absolutely nothing suggests that this article fulfills the qualifications outlined under WP:N. Plus I just love the whole "I'm going to get a lawyer because you don't think my guy is notable" thing. It's added a bit of levity to a stressful morning, thanks. Trusilver 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Expanding my reason for deletion to include the request of the author. Trusilver 02:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Cstanfie wants to get a lawyer in case of a libel suit, having falsely accused someone of racism on a popular website. As far as I can see, this user is the only one here to have done smething potentially legally actionable. Lurker 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources of notability. Though the IP addresses that keep vandalizing the article, the AfD and the AfD's Talk page do resolve to a large law firm. I wonder if it's "Bring your college age kid to work day". Corvus cornix 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pastorcruft, doesn't meet notability criteria. And it's a repost of a deleted article. Lurker 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This has gotten out of hand and should be deleted. I am seriously disappointed with the immaturity of those editors involved in the deletion of this page. The breach of privacy in tracking IP addresses and contacting Jay Thomas directly were uncalled for and very unprofessional. Apologies for everyone's wasted time. Dhaut 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no breach of privacy. All IP addresses have WHOIS links at the bottom of the page. One click goes to the appropriate address owner. Corvus cornix 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete the page please so that we all can move on to more productive things. Dhaut 18:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has been deleted at least twice (maybe three times) already. The user persists in recreating it. delete and salt. Exploding Boy 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that, although this minister may be remarkably influential and noteworthy given the circumstances he has overcome in life, he has yet to be given sufficient press coverage to merit a page at this time.Radioalarm 19:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

'A Statement from the Original Creators' Consistent with the wishes of Jay Thomas and College Church, we hereby request that this page be considered for Speedy Deletion. We regret that what started as a lighthearted issue has escalated to the current level. We would like to publicly acknowledge that any "legal threats", expressed or implied, were shallow, baseless, and inactionable and were intended to be sarcastic. This sarcasm was lost on many readers. We also retract any personal attacks, express or implied, against any of those who requested deletion of the article. We also apologize for any other people or entities, expressed or implied, who were offended by any remarks made in these posts. We have reason to believe that many Wikipedia users, including Nyttend and Rossheth, were acting with the best of intentions and regret our comments with respect to those individuals. We apologize for the colossal waste of time and energy that this has cost all involved, and we ask that out of respect for Jay Thomas and all of those associatd with these discussions that the page and all of its associated discussions be summarily deleted. Thank you. Cstanfie2 22:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record before we go, his notability would be that he is college pastor of the College Church at Wheaton, a very notable liberal religiously-oriented college. Thee may be sources, but the article did not provide them. Perhaps some time a proper article can be written without this fuss, preferably by someone who know about Wheaton but with less COI. This round, COI, as it often does, hindered the writing of an acceptable article and conducting a good discussion. DGG 00:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. I can only imagine the hastily convened meetings and sheepish discussions that precipitated this. Just delete the damn thing already. Exploding Boy 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per author's request. Most of the sources do not clearly refer to the subject. The fact that he is one of the pastors at one of the "50 Most Influential Churches" should not qualify him under WP:BIO because he is not the head pastor at that church. I would also point out that the issues of his citizenship or Native American heritage were completely irrelevant to this AfD since they were not even mentioned in the article. --Metropolitan90 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt. Let's move on. --Bren ^talk 05:19, 19 June 2007 (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.