Template:SC-Project

• Talk:Bob Jones University/Archive 0001 : December 6, 2001 - August 19, 2005
• Talk:Bob Jones University/Archive 0002 : August 24, 2005 - August 27, 2005
• Talk:Bob Jones University/Archive 0003 : August 28, 2005 - July 31, 2006

While legitimate criticism is appropriate, the nobojo link is clearly linkspam. One could go to any university in the world with a chip on one's shoulder and wind up with a similar ridicule of its culture and policies. If one were forced to go to that school against one's will, it would be an easy thing to have an attitude, and produce such yellow journalism. Whether one agrees with the site author or not is irrelevant. Linkspammers have characteristic patterns, including editing from anonymous sites that do not make any other edits, adding links on multiple pages, adding the link first in line, etc. The link is gone and it's gonna stay gone, as I will, if neccessary notify other linkspam police to keep watch. Pollinator 18:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll back you on that. --John Foxe 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pollinator 22:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll back you on that.

Greetings, JF. The only reason I created Nobojo.org is because you guys tried this stunt before. I was content just to make minor edits to Wikipedia. JF and Friends inspired Nobojo.org by just this kind of conspiratorial shenanigans. When you refuse to play fairly -- even with your critics -- this is what you get. There is no need for this to get out of hand as before. If it does, it will be entirely of your doing, because I'm going to cut to the chase right from the git-go: My link under "Comments" on the BJU page is fair comment. Stop monkeying with that link, and I'll forego any links on the Bob, Jr., Bob, Sr., Bob III, Bibb Graves, and fundamentalism pages. And I will not edit ANY of those pages, including the BJU page. This is a is the best olive branch I can offer you short of shutting up for your convenience. Would your side shut up for mine? Neither of us should be in the business of trying to silence the other. My links are within Wikipedia's rules and editorial policy, and I'm as much entitled to post/edit here are you are. Shall we learn from our past unpleasantness and agree on an equitable solution now ? Anyone wanting to discuss this can email me at info(at)nobojo.zzn.com. I give you my word that I will not post your comments on my site without your permission as long as they relate to Wikipedia. Thank you. (As a further gesture of respect, I am not going to re-post my link to any of those pages -- except the BJU page -- until you've read this and responded. But the first time anyone deletes my link on the BJU page, then I'm going to resume exercising my full editorial rights within Wikipedia guidelines.) I'll play squarely by Wikipedia's rules. Will you? -- Nobojo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.35.62 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT. It is clearcut spam, and now that we see your reasoning for doing it, it's also another violation of policy.Pollinator 03:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pollinator, I did check that link. It's about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. All I want is a link on the BJU page under Comments where it's entitled to be. That's not disrupting Wikipedia. What you guys are conspiring to do is, in fact, a violation of the very policy you cited. And furthermore, I've cited no "reasoning for doing it" other than I'm as entitled to post appropriate links in appropriate places as you are. (If you're referring to my stated "reason" for creating Nobojo.org, my motives may be anathema to you, but my "reasons" for creating a critical website are irrelevant as far as Wikipedia's rules are concerned.) Back to the point: I'm not asking your permission to post appropriate links in appropriate places. I'm offering a way that we can all be adults here. Again, I am offering to not avail myself of certain Wikipedia pages as a gesture of peace. I'm waiting for someone -- JF, possibly? -- to step up to the plate and let's nip the editorial unpleasantness in the bud. But I'm not going to keep arguing with you if you're just hellbent on running a censorship contest. -- Nobojo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.35.62 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot "bargain" for links. Either the link passes our external links policy or it doesn't. Your link doesn't. Accept this and move on. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those combatting this user's linkspam, here is a useful link: All articles with nobojo.org links. I just cleaned up the last spate. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nobojo I've said all along I'll abide by Wikipedia's policies. If this is their policy, I'll abide by it. 700+ hits in the site's first three days, hardly any from Wikipedia. Move on? You bet your sweet "wiki"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.148.100 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of bargaining for links you tried above is not permitted. Offering to trade the lack of WP:EL-prohibited links on a particular page in exchange for others allowing a WP:EL-prohibted link on another page is just not done. By contrast, discussion and mediation are intended to reconcile disagreements about what is permitted by policy and what would be good for the article, not in what circumstances we can make exceptions to the rules.

My perspective on Bob Jones University and your page might be enlightening, since it shows the separation of personal opinion and editorial opinion. I thoroughly disagree with the political and social agenda of fundamentalist christianity. However, I agree that Wikipedia's editorial standards against personal-page linking and for requiring reliable sources are good for the project and our readers. And so, I remove your link even though I agree with its message. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nobojo Peace, dude! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.148.100 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." (From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy. CyberAnth 18:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi — I've tagged this article with Template:citation style because it uses both <ref> footnotes and external links for citations. The best course would probably be to switch the external links into <ref> elements. —ptk✰fgs 23:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be a big deal, but won't consistency mean trading one click for two--one to get down to the notes and another to get to the URL of the external links? --John Foxe 00:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would, but for someone who prints out the article, the external links will currently just show as numbers. Using <ref> elements will allow them to see the references. The <ref> footnoting style is a de facto standard for featured articles, and for most developed articles of significant length.. Using footnotes also helps when you have a site that goes dead -- rather than just linking to a URL, you may list who wrote it, when it was written, and when it was retrieved. The use of named <ref> elements also makes it easy to cite the same source more than once. —ptk✰fgs 00:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That makes sense. --John Foxe 13:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the substitution made by K.Lee, but I would suggest that the Supreme Court, if it had chosen to do so, had reasonable cause to look behind the University's declaration that the no-interacial dating rule was a sincerely held religious belief. There was a lot of medicinal alcohol drunk during Prohibition. --John Foxe 21:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this fellow from "Notable Former Students" because it doesn't seem (at least at this point) that he's either famous or notorious enough to be considered "notable." Having weird views doesn't necessarily mean you'll make the cut, and for several years now he seems to have stayed out of whatever limited limelight he enjoyed. Let's reconsider this fellow if he ever makes the University of Pittsburgh page. --John Foxe 18:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U of Pit has no section about notable alumni. Provan is a repeatedly published author which would alone lend to his notoriety among BJU transferees. Moreover, one of his books has helped solidify an entire movement, Quiverfull (also see Christian views on contraception#.22Children_in_abundance.22_group). The fact that he may have been quiet over the past some years is irrelevant. For all we know, he has been quiet because he is deceased. CyberAnth 05:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Pitt does have a "notable" section, of whom the most notorious, I think, is Harry K. Thaw [1]. Provan's books are either self-published or published by an obscure religious house. Why don't you try the University of Pittsburgh page and see if he'll stick there? (Come to think of it, based on education, position, and publication record, I think I'm more "famous" than Provan.) --John Foxe 10:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well your tone definitely sets you apart. Based upon your record here, I will let you guys have your little club. CyberAnth 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, thanks for teaching me what "Quiverfull" is. I'm going to stop using that term when I congratuate someone on say, the arrival of their fifth or sixth child. --John Foxe 20:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think Provan's a nonentity, but let's leave him up for awhile and see what happens. I don't think "holocaust denier" is appropriate though, since he doesn't deny it. Let the curious go to CyberAnth's bio.--John Foxe 10:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, where's your bio?? CyberAnth 11:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust deniers do not all deny the holocaust but seek to significantly revise its history. Don't take the word "denial" too literally. See Holocaust_denial#Terminology:_Holocaust_denial_or_Holocaust_revisionism.3F

Still waiting to see your bio, Foxe. CyberAnth 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Provan's just too insignificant for this page. --John Foxe 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, lets just let the older description stay up for awhile longer and see what happens. Sometimes there are days of calm followed by flurries of activity. --John Foxe 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Foxe, I have a question for you. Did you graduate from and/or do you work at or have family at BJU? CyberAnth 02:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good bet to me:)--John Foxe 10:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran Provan on Google and then my own real, unusual name, and the hits were virtually identical, in the mid-hundreds. This fellow's simply not notable enough to be on the same list with Billy Graham, Fred Phelps, and two porno actors.--John Foxe 14:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Google test is a pretty weak method to determine notability. My own real name turns up about 600,000 hits on Google. CyberAnth 18:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends on your name, Mr. Smith :)

I've asked Will Beback for his opinion about Provan. Better to have a third party make a considered judgment about this one.--John Foxe 19:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<-- The usual standard for notability in Wikipedia is having a biography. In that respect Provan is more notable then many of the alumni now listed. If Provan is not notable then we should delete his article. College and university alumni lists often get quite long and there isn't a problem with that. If the list of people gets too long then we can split it out. That was done with List of notable University of Pittsburgh people (which also includes Provan). -Will Beback · † · 19:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm satisfied.--John Foxe 22:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole book about BJU's history cited throughout this article, and in such a volume the reasons BJU did not apply for accreditation earlier--and why it did when it did--will undoubtedly be covered extensively whenever BJU wants to issue a new edition. In a paragraph of a couple of sentences about BJU history, a statement reflecting on BJU's earlier lack of accreditation is out of place. Such a statement would imply, among other things, that BJU's previous educational practice had been shoddy--which it wasn't.--John Foxe 19:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BJU's decision to not get accredited, and its later decision to do so, are important facts in the history of the institution. While we can find different ways to word the text, I think that we need to make some reference to that part of its history. -Will Beback · † · 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, it's simply a fact, and a relevant one. I have no axe to grind; I merely added it because I had a memory that BJU was not accredited by a federally-recognised body, and looked it up to check; found that it WAS accredited, and then had to search through the references and follow external links to find that my previous memory had been correct, but that BJU had since become accredited (in November 2006).

Any implications are purely in the mind of the reader; our job is simply to unbiasedly report the facts. If it is a fact worthy of the first paragraph of the lead section that the university is now accredited, it is surely also a relevant fact when it became so, and what its previous status was. If someone can expand on this, with sources, that would indeed be relevant and interesting; but until that's done I see no reason to leave it out. TSP 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, gentlemen. I'll see to it.--John Foxe 11:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the changes I just made to the article It is total speculation as to why the supreme court appointed a third party attorney to argue the governments case. Also, if it was "unprecedented" for the Court to do this, there should be a citation for this fact.

I also added the citation for the order by the court inviting the amicus brief. Unfortunately findlaw does not make Sup Ct. orders available online, so I can only provide the citation, not a copy of the actual order.--Jwikipro 16:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a citation and a quotation from Turner. If appointing a third-party attorney in such a fashion was not "unprecedented," I'd like to know of another case.

Theoretically why the Court appointed Coleman is, as you say, "total speculation." In the real world of 1982, however, there's not a shadow of a doubt that the Court didn't want the Reagan Administration, which had just tried to abandon the BJU case, to then send an Administration appointee to argue it.--John Foxe 19:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a better logo? That one looks really pixulated. If pixulated is really a word. If it isn't then it looks bad. :) --BenWoodruff 22:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)75.66.252.124 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the logo. Perhaps a geekophile can upload a better image.--John Foxe 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on American Idol after being expelled from BJU doesn't make one notable--not even in Greenville, although there was a short piece on him this week in the Greenville News that didn't mention BJU. Sligh is certainly no "rock star." Someone said of Zsa Zsa Gabor that she was famous for being famous. Wait a bit; if Sligh survives on American Idol, he may become "notable," at least by the Zha Zha Gabor standard.--John Foxe 14:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sligh's former affiliation with the university was mentioned repeatedly by Greenville's Fox station and WHNS. It also merited an hour's worth of discussion on the SC Upstate's most popular talk radio program, the Ralph Bristol Show. A review of American Idol commentators shows that Chris is the current favorite, and the judges' comments late last year indicate that Sligh has made a significant impression on them, as well. But I agree, we can wait until at least after Hollywood. ExpectantCloisterance 22:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the name again. If and when he becomes notable enough for a Wikipedia article we can re-add him. -Will Beback · † · 02:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that a gay porno star can remain as a notable non-graduate but a talented young man who is definately notable (whether he wins or not..he's already made his mark on the US and you can't argue with that) to a number of people is constantly deleted. Surely the fact that in the last 24 hours at least 5 people have tried to add him to the list is enough to convince you that he's noteworthy. ge

There's no indication that the five accounts were differnt people. The porn star is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Create one for the singer and we'll have an outside judgment on his notability. Please don't not keep adding his name until that happens. -Will Beback · † · 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of creating a page for Chris Sligh (and it will be a longer process, because I do want to do both Sligh and Wiki justice by creating something readable and worthy of posting), but since he's made it past Hollywood, I do think it is reasonable to add and keep him on the notable non-grads list. -mhgood 23:13 13 February 2007

I'm not sure what it means to "make it past Hollywood". To my view, even making it to the final 12 of season 6 of American Idol doesn't necessarily make one notable. Being noted makes one notable. In any case, let's see how the overall Wikipedia community views the notability of Sligh. But unless an article is forthcoming we should remove the entry again. -Will Beback · † · 07:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other venues for a Chris Sligh fan club; those so inclined should make use of them.--John Foxe 11:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Sligh has indeed progressed into the semi-finals, and news searches of his name are becoming increasingly more fruitful, as he has achieved a sort of underdog appeal. Given his national recognition, which has exceeded that of certain other persons on the non-grad list, perhaps his inclusion should be considered. However, "Chris Sligh-American Idol for the 2007 season" is a poor and misleading description, so I have removed it until this issue can be resolved. I do believe his name should be on this page, though. 74.242.72.151 22:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rough standard for Wikipedia "notability" seems to be whether or not a Wikipedia article about the individual can survive an AfD test. There's no Wikipedia article on Sligh at this moment, and I'm determined to keep his name off this page until such an article appears and can weather the AfD test.--John Foxe 23:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Foxe: I'm fascinated! Apparently you are blessed with an all knowing sense of what is fact and what is mere opinion. Isn't it as much a matter of opinion that you seem to think Chris is not notable? Let's examine the facts: According to MSNBC, over 25% of the nearly 16,000 people that voted think Chris is notable. Take a minute out of your obsession with Wikipedia and check out some of the many fan sites cropping up all over the internet. While I agree that subjective statements like "Chris Sligh, the totally rad future American Idol (or something like that)" should not be on a Wikipedia site, objective statements like "Chris Sligh, former student, contestant on the popular TV show American Idol, recognized by many top news sites as having exceptional talent" should be allowed. While you personally may not believe he is notable, the fact of the matter is, a good deal of America thinks he is. I personally don't find several of the people on the page notable. I spent four years of my life at the school and happen to have a good idea who from my school is notable and who is not. I don't find a porn star to be notable: I find it to be disgusting but you don't see me deleting his name. Why? Because I know that someone out there found him to be of some note, and as the statement was objective and I suppose the guy was somewhat famous, he has as much a right to be considered a notable non-graduate as the next guy. Now, I'm not sure who made you the Wiki-police, but please be aware that people will continue to add Chris as a notable non-grad so you might as well give it up and realize that you've been out opinioned. My recommendation for you?..get your panties out of a twist, log off your wiki account for once and kick back Tuesday night and vote for Chris Sligh. You might actually enjoy yourself. Your fan and avid devotee, ge

John Foxe, I command you to revert using popups! Just out of curiosity, where did you come up with this "rough standard for Wikipedia notability"?—Emote _{Talk Page} 06:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My "rough standard of Wikipedia notability" arose from the long discussion above about one Charles D. Provan, a true non-entity whose educational accomplishments, career path, and publication record are less impressive than my own. The difference between Provan and Sligh is that Provan has his own article on Wikipedia that can pass an AfD challenge. Sligh has no such article. If Sligh fans would like him to stick on this page, then they should write a Wikipedia bio that can weather an AfD challenge. Once over that hurdle, so far as I'm concerned, he's a worthy addition to the BJU page.

I realize that Sligh fans will keep adding his name regardless of what I say, but the BJU article is so often vandalized that I make regular stops here anyway. And popups are a great way to revert. It probably takes me a tenth of the time to revert as it does for vandals to post.--John Foxe 13:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it's a magically created rule. You decided one day that you just didn't like someone's name appearing on a page, so you generated some random reason for deleting him—how original. However, since Wikipedia does not have a policy that would reflect or support your own prejudices against the page, your deletions are vandalism.

No worries on the reverting. "Undo" is pretty quick as well.—Emote _{Talk Page} 14:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll let the community decide which of us is the vandal.--John Foxe 14:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, let's see here. Which one of us goes around deleting good-faith edits? I refer you to the following Wikipedia policy regarding ownership of articles:

Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. It's one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But when this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it.

The amazing thing here is that you don't even have the excuse of defending your own work. You actually reject all additions to the article. At any rate, happy hounding.—Emote _{Talk Page} 14:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Sligh should be included on the page, but perhaps "Chris Sligh, singer, contestant on the popular TV show American Idol, gained recognition by fans all over the US as well as several major news sites for his voice and personality" is a tad gushy. ExpectantCloisterance 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest John Foxe: answer me just this one question: did you attend BJU? Actually I lied, I have a couple of questions. What is your obsession with the BJU page? Why are you so naturally disposed to being negative? Is there some rule on Wikipedia that anyone named under a particular article must have his or her own article? Now, I think the community has already decided who the vandal is, especially since over on facebook we're having a rip roaring time laughing at your rather OCD tendencies concerning the BJU article on Wiki. In fact, I think we might just create a fan group just for you...but forgive me, I digress. The fact of the matter still remains that we are breaking no rules by posting factual information concerning Chris Sligh. As Wikipedia is a sort of webpage for the masses, we have as much right to add Chris Sligh as whoever added Billy Graham or our dearly beloved porn star did. I have quite a few other things to say concerning you personally but I'm afraid they are far to subjective to mention in this particular venue so I'll save them for facebook. Cheers friend. I hope you have a fabulous evening. If Jack Bauer isn't notable enough to divert you from Wikipedia for an hour then I'm afraid there is no hope for you. yours, ge

Feel free to add Sligh to this page. Feel free to have a good laugh at my expense. I will continue to delete him until there is a Wikipedia bio that can pass the AfD test. Once over that hurdle, so far as I'm concerned, he's a worthy addition to the BJU page.--John Foxe 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's curious, John Foxe, that you seem to have a double standard for notability then. Daniel B. Verdin, Rich Merritt, and many others on the BJU page have no Wikipedia article, yet you don't remove their entries from the article. If you are willing, I would like for you to explain this apparent bias to the rest of us. Thanks for your help for those of us who may not fully understand this standard. Wikiedit2006sc 03:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question: did you attend BJU? But then, I noticed you also conveniently bypassed that question on another discussion up there which means you probably don't want to admit that you have even less credibility in dealing with the Bob Jones University page than you already think you have. Stop avoiding the question Foxe: Did you attend Bob Jones University? I'll be honest with you, I'm not going to lose any sleep if Chris Sligh doesn't manage to remain on this particular site. The main reason I've even been pressing this issue is b/c of the rules you seem to create on a whim so that the BJU page can remain just as you want it to be. The reason I really want to know if you were even a student is b/c if you weren't, you really should leave the editing of this page up to people who actually know the school. If you were, I'd really like to know why you consider yourself the living expert on Bob Jones University and the sole editor of it's wiki page. This website is a public website, to be edited by the public. Like the person above me pointed out, there are others on the page without their own articles. There are others on a LOT of pages on wikipedia that don't have their own articles. There is a statement just below this box that says "encyclopedic content must be verifiable". What we have been trying to add IS verifiable...we can produce quotes from many well known news sites that by their mere existence prove the fact that Chris is notable. That, plus the fact that he is undeniably a former student of Bob Jones= notable non-graduate. Please take a good look at the reasons you are so adamant that he in particular should not remain on the site b/c they really don't jive with the basic premise of Wikipedia. You have singlehandedly decided to commandeer a bit of cyberspace that doesn't really belong to you and you need to loosen your grasp and allow other well informed people to make additions. g.e.

My theory is that, because he so desperately opposes Chris Sligh's association with BJU, John Foxe is either Jon Daulton, Tony Miller, or Jim Berg, heh heh. Seriously though, I have a compromise suggestion here. John Foxe claims that Chris lacks notability and therefore should not be listed as a notable former student. So let's rename the category Notable and not-so-notable former students. Or we could create a new category just for Chris: Obscure former students who have made repeated appearances on national television. You get the idea.—Emote _{Talk Page} 04:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be an associate of the school to think that Sligh is not notable. There are thousands of non-notable people who have atended BJU. The standard for notability oin Wikipedia is an article. Thus far, Slight does not merit one. I'm sure we all wish him success in his game show. -Will Beback · † · 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if anyone would be kind enough to put this whole thing to rest by telling me where I can find the following Wikipedia policy: The standard for notability on Wikipedia is an article. My hunch is that no such standard exists but that it was conveniently created for purposes of winning this particular argument, but I could be wrong. Mr. Beback, would you please refer me to the page containing the policy? If it exists, you won't hear from me again on this issue.—Emote _{Talk Page} 22:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and guidelines reflect practice. The usual rule of thumb is that having an article establishes notability. I can point you to the policy on consensus: WP:CON. Please don't push your viewpoint onto the article. -Will Beback · † · 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one must merit a dedicated Wikipedia article in order to appear on the list of notables, may I inquire as to why others in the same said list (Daniel B. Verdin, Rich Meritt, George Youstra, Les Olilla, the list goes on) do not seem to have their own articles. Why the double standard? If Chris Sligh's fame has surpassed the majority of the aforementioned notables, what is there preventing his inclusion in the list? Please don't bring up his lack of an article; I just refuted that argument. (Barang 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

add to the people without articles: Emery Bopp (a dearly beloved former teacher of mine who just passed away) and Mr. Koons. Both most definately notable as they have been published and had their work shown nationally and internationally. Yet still without articles. The article argument is completely invalid. Anyway, I see the solution to the problem seems to be to delete notable non grads altogether. I suppose that's one method of having the last word, however you still have several categories full of article-less people. ge

You have noted the difference. Koons and Bopp are "notable" by Wikipedia standards, men with significant life-time achievement. They just have not yet found a biographer. (Since you were Bopp's student, why not you?) Sligh is simply famous for being famous, one of many contestants on a TV show (and one of the most crass and pandering at that). I will continue to delete Sligh's name until there is a Wikipedia bio that can pass the AfD test. Once over that hurdle, so far as I'm concerned, Sligh will become a worthy addition to the BJU page.--John Foxe 14:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is dissappointing to see the removal of other notable non-grads over this issue. However, the wit that vandalized the list forgot to delete the other notable associates of the university that didn't have articles to their name. An article is not the standard for notability. Neither is lifetime acheivement. Check the lists of other universities and organizations if you aren't convinced. Perhaps you could delete the lists of notables there, as well. While some sympathetic to BJU (including myself) may consider Sligh's previous association with the university unfortunate in light of his actions that are now clearly opposed to BJU ideology, I believe it is time to add him to the list. He is now clearly a favorite of music critics (however crass) across the country, and it is likely that his time on American Idol will launch an extended music career. He is not famous simply for being famous; he is famous because an overwhelming number of mindless TV viewers enjoy his voice and personality. Give him that, at least. This conversation is taking up far too much space on BJU's talk page. ExpectantCloisterance 20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How hard can it be to create a Wikipedia bio for Sligh? Or is there just nothing to say?--John Foxe 22:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming there is a legitimate reason you are avoiding actual debate. Perhaps when you have more time; I can wait. ExpectantCloisterance 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I've asked for is a Wikipedia bio that can pass the AfD test. Once over that hurdle, so far as I'm concerned, Sligh will be a worthy addition to the BJU page. There are dreadful Wiki bios out there that have survived AfD. As the unlamented Joe McCarthy once said, "Find out what the editor wants and get it to him when he wants it. It doesn't have to be very good."--John Foxe 23:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy was unlamented for a reason. What you have or have not asked for is immaterial to the issue of notability. An article is not required. But congratulations, you've earned "ownership" of this article by merit of your obstinacy, if not powers of persuasion. I'll not bother you again. However, if your ultimate goal is to improve the public image of BJU, be mindful that the above dialogue did little to accomplish this. ExpectantCloisterance 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a little in the dark as to John Foxe's affiliation with Bob Jones University. In the above post he implies editorialship of this article. By what mandate is he the sole editor and authority on this article? I mean, removing other names under the Notable Graduates so the notability argument will stand up? (Barang 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on Holocaust denial, not on the euphemism for Holocaust denial, "Holocaust revisionism". Please don't link to re-directs, and please call belief systems by their actual names. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on your talk page. Provan is not a true holocaust denier, and he has been criticized by those who are.--John Foxe 19:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]