Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farrell Till

Farrell Till

Farrell Till simply isn't notable. He was an editor of a publication with a very small audience. He has written a few articles and debated a few people. These things certainly don't make him notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • as nominator, your 'delete' vote is assumed.
• Keep 28,800 hits on Google, and I'm not liking what I'm seeing here, looks like a revenge series of AfDs in retailiation for the Chuck Missler one. Ruby 04:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This is and any other WP:POINT nominations. --Rob 04:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep; nomination made in bad faith. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete There are obvious WP:POINT issues here but let's try to deal with each article on its own merits. In this case, there are just over 400 Ghits ( go to the end of the list and look at the count now). He seems at about the same level of notability as some of the diploma mill nomination. Dlyons493 Talk 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think its important to point out, that in a speedy keep doesn't give somebody a free pass on WP:BIO. Its not a precedent for keeping the article, the way a normal keep would be. A speedy keep just puts things back the way they were yesterday. If we had done a speedy keep (which isn't happening apparently), nothing would stop you or any other editor from doing a good faith nomination. Its hard to tell somebody they shouldn't have done a nomination, but since they did, we'll give them what they want. --Rob 07:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While I agree the nom was made in bad faith, I agree he is not notable. Crunch 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Dlyons493 and Crunch. It is a very immoral "revenge" for the AfDs filed against Jason Gastrich's articles, but this article is also not bery notable. Sycthos^Talk 04:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I hereby Abstain myself from these AfDs created in bad faith. Sycthos^Talk 04:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Mr. Till's written works tend to annoy me, but I have encountered them more than once in my research. Notable, but a borderline case. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep nomination made in bad faith as an act of "retaliation." Mark K. Bilbo 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, nomination in bad faith; Till has shown some notable influence in the skeptic community, in large part because of his previous association with evangelical Christianity. And here's something that's amusing: One of the "few people" that Till has debated is Gastrich, after which, Gastrich posted a "gay urges" email forgery. There's obviously a personal history between the two, and I've suggested before that it would be a good idea for someone like Gastrich, who is completely incapable of acting from a neutral POV, to recuse himself from these kinds of things. - WarriorScribe 06:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was skeptical, but he gets a good deal of hits at Google and five at Scholar Google.[1]--T. Anthony 07:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, and I would advise people against using AfD to start an ideological war. Grandmasterka 10:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, enough google hits and general noise for an article. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Absolutely nothing in the article implies notability. --Pierremenard 13:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 15:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Stub articles on notable people need expansion, not deletion. -- Dragonfiend 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain Shoddy article, borderline notability, POV nomination. --kingboyk 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep; nomination made in bad faith. Jim62sch 19:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)