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. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC) emasculate and retain[reply]

Gastrich, or one of his supporters clearly wrote the original entry... Cut down, emasculated, and with a healthy dose of scepticism added I think it's worth leaving a page here on him if only to provide a voice that counters the enormous spin-machine that he runs through his ministry... He's clearly an important figure in North American fundamentalism which sadly twists real Christian teaching and attitudes through power abuse, ignorance, manipulation and personal ambition... I'm sorry... from the tone of the original article, Gastrich is clearly no different... so if he wants a presence in wikipedia, so be it, and let the article 'testify' to that...

DiegoJones

Jason Gastrich[edit]

• DeleteThis entry will not improve the Wikipedia resource.Delete

This is simply a vanity page, as far as I can see. The level of debate he has managed to stir up is actually quite limited, and his "debating" with Usenet and other users is not particularly erudite. He has been as guilty of mis-representation as some of the tele-evangelists referenced below, often quoting at length arguments made by other creationists that have been thoroughly discredited, often years ago.

If Mr Gastrich deserves a Wikepedia article about himself, then I am afraid that the whole resource may as well degenerate into a free-for-all of vanity articles and ego-massaging entries.

Please delete this article.

Rob Naylor

• RetainThis entry will improve the Wikipedia resource.Retain

While it is true that Jason is still at a fairly early stage in his life and career for God, he already has managed to stir up so much discussion and debate about the Christian faith in the net, running one of the most visited Christian resources, and facilitating online work for many other Christians, as well as actively debating the most zealous and high profile atheists of America in Usenet and Bulletin Board discussions, so that he has actually become very high profile among them.

There exists a sizeable campaign among them to shut his mouth and make him look bad, and they usually use their overwhelming number on their forums to flood out his posts with bad posts about him, which actually in my view have no serious substance other than to serve as an excuse not to listen to the Message.

The existence of a few regrettable frauds in the tele-evangelists have enabled people to paint even sincere people in the worst possible colours, and they have been leveraging this to the hilt in defaming Gastrich, who is innocent of the matters they alledge and insinuate against him.

The existence of an officially sanctioned by Jason article about him on a resource of authority like Wikipedia would be a useful way to offer a balanced view about him, and would not detract from the quality and authority of this online encyclopedia. On the contrary, it would enhance it.

David J. James (aka "Uncle Davey) http://www.usenetposts.com

• • No, Davey, there is no "so much discussion" nor "most visited site" nor "sizeable campagin" nor any such thing involved. It's a relatively minor sideshow in the online world. Nothing to get excited about. Face it, if Gastrich were of any real significance, he and his merry band of sycophants wouldn't have to try to wedge a vanity page into the Wikipedia. Fact is, this system is not meant for self-promotion. You can whine about "persecution" all you want but there exist page after page after page here explaining what the Wikipedia is for and how it works. Deliberately breaking the rules then whining "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" only makes you look foolish. Mark K. Bilbo 17:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Though at an early stage in his "career for God," the only reason this "evangelist" has "managed to stir up so much discussion," which is mostly *not* about the Christian faith, is because of his underhanded and dishonest tactics as well as his methods of self-promotion. This "officially sanctioned" article does nothing more than repeat a number of his own self-aggrandizing claims. Like most such articles, it leaves more questions unanswered than answered.

• This is a self-admitted vanity page [1] by a trinity of users; Big Lover (talk · contribs) aka Big Hater (talk · contribs) aka Bobby Lou (talk · contribs). If anyone's ever come across this guy on Usenet you'll know he's a complete nutjob and a troll who runs half a dozen apologetics sites for his own personal gain. All of whatlinksthere was added by one of the three persons of Gastrich. Dunc|☺ 10:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This Entry Should Stay. Duncharris is biased and has been against Gastrich for some time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Skeptic%27s_Annotated_Bible&action=history where he edited the entry so that someone wouldn't create a page for Gastrich (and he also made a negative comment about Gastrich in the attributions, indicating a personal bias against him).

  The Jason Gastrich entry is informative and he is notable as an author of several books, former gubernatorial candidate, college professor, etc. He is also mentioned and linked on several other Wikipedia pages. See:

  • Results of the 2003 California recall
  • Farrell Till
  • Reggie Finley
  • Skeptic's Annotated Bible
  • Louisiana Baptist University
    • Gastrich complains about bias in others, but would pretend that he has no bias. People are biased against him because of his actions and tactics, and the issues about an encyclopedia entry are just more examples of Gastrich's arrogance. Gastrich is not notable and did not author "several" books. There are two of record, one of them in three editions. Of those, both are amateurish, self-published, and self-promoted (just as all of this is about selling those books). He is not a "college professor." Having taught at a tech/trade college in undergraduate courses, assuming that's even true, does not make one a "college professor." His run for Governor of California was a joke. He got 11 votes, despite a fairly vigorous campaign. He couldn't even get the support of his local churches and fellow Christians, and that was so infuriating to him that he issued a press release, whining about it.
• On the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, Gastrich has had several debates. IIDB's top two most popular debates of all time belong to Gastrich. They've been read tens of thousands of times and so has the commentary thread(also most popular of all time). Among the commentary threads and debate threads, there are well over 60,000 reads; more than any other member or debater or thread.
  • It should be kept in mind that part of the reason for this is Gastrich arrogance, and the general desire among the readers to see Gastrich properly roasted in these debates, which is, of course, exactly what happened.
• On the Infidel Guy forum, Gastrich's debate is also the most popular of all time. And so is its commentary thread with tens of thousands of reads.
  • I don't know how the "debate" was determined to "the most popular of all time." It was fairly universally panned, with neither participant gaining much in the way of praise, and it's said that Gastrich charged (and, amazingly, was paid) $1,000 for his "performance." Gastrich's arguments, as usual, were eviscerated in the "Peanut Gallery" and Gastrich, himself, was unable to answer many pertinent questions about his position and about things related to him. If this was a "popular" debate, it was because there is some satisfaction in seeing one such as Gastrich humbled.
• This certainly isn't a vanity page and even if Gastrich is a nutjob, that isn't reason to remove this entry. I'm not an admin, but I vote to keep it. --Big Daddy 11:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Daddy is Jason Gastrich, so it's disingenuous, but common, for Gastrich to refer to himself as we see above, just as it's quite normal for Gastrich to take on a name like "Big Daddy" and refer to himself in the third person. Wiki does not keep articles by every narcissist that comes down the pike, and Gastrich should be no different. DELETE
  • The links were added, today, by you. As for college professor!?!?!?! That's a new one Jason, a step up from the diploma mill phds eh (you can find more about Jason's academic credentials here). The books appear to be from vanity presses. You are also aware that it's going to have to comply with WP:NPOV guidelines, right? Dunc|☺ 11:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gastrich teaching college courses at Coleman College (a nationally accredited technical school) in Psychology and Sociology is not new information. According to archive.org, while his resume was online, it was mentioned there. In fact, it's (ironically) linked from the durangobill.com site Duncharris cited above. --Big Daddy 10:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jason, you are known liar. Did you perchance, get that job with your "degree" from Louisiana Baptist University? Do you think your bosses should know about this? — Dunc|☺ 10:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Coleman College is a small trade/tech college near San Diego, and teaching classes there does not make one a "professor." Usually the granting of the title, "Professor," has a specific criteria and meaning. Gastrich has always been impressed with the use of titles--"Doctor," "Professor," "counselor," and so on, even when he hasn't really earned the right to use those titles.
• Delete With points for trolling other pages to create apparent encyclopedic depth, lol. Clearly nn, vanity, self-promo page. Dottore So 13:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gastrich earned only 11 votes in the California gubernatorial election. Amazon.com does list his books but his best selling work is at rank 1,961,734 in sales.[2] Two out of three user reviews are scathing. The other looks like it was written by the author or a friend. Durova 14:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If positive book reviews on Amazon.com are actually a criteria for keeping a Wikipedia article, then the article should remain. There are far more positive reviews than negative ones. There are 26 total reviews and the book has received an average of 4 out of 5 stars. --Big Daddy 01:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gastrich, you wrote most of those positive reviews with sock puppet accounts at Amazon. Harvestdancer 05:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there are more positive reviews, many clearly written by Gastrich. However, anyone who bothers to give the issue any thought can see that the negative reviews are clearly the more objective and substantial, and so have the most value. Even many Christians have steered clear of Gastrich and his controversies, and of those who comment, most find is methods offensive.
• Delete per nom. Or replace with the text "this guy is a loser and a whacknut" and lock the sucker :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be contrary to our neutral point of view official policy. Uncle G 15:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure that if it survives (er) we can arrange for it to be formulated within the NPOV framework. Dunc|☺ 22:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such as "Some critics say he is a loser, but others say he's a whacknut"? --Calton | Talk 05:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As Wikipedia:avoid weasel terms says, that is not appropriate either. Uncle G 16:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ungle G, you are absolutely right. Fortunately the British Parliament has similar rules - Perhaps I should look into the speeches of the late Sir Winston Churchill and collect together some appropriately Wikipedian terms :-D - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think we will have any trouble turning the article into something more objective and honest, should it be retained. There's a lot of information on the web and in Usenet about Jason Gastrich and even from stuff written BY him. We can draw on that. Encyclopedia articles are not about promotion, and if they are written about personalities, they include the warts and controversies that Gastrich clearly wants to avoid. If the article is kept, it should include those. Otherwise, it is just a vanity piece.
• Delete per nomination. Ze miguel 14:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Avalon 16:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jason Gastrich LEAVE IT,,, we live in a world where everyone has a right to freedom of speech. Nothing he has done is vulgar or should not be heard. Protect the right of everyone to be heard. Just because you don't agree with him you shouldn't make him take it down. Ralph by 68.7.3.138 19:44, 14 November 2005 [3]
  • That's ironic, since he's apparently resorted to the legal system himself to shut up opponents or criticism. --Calton - Talk 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true. Gastrich has attempted to use the legal system to shut down critics, at least once through a frivolous lawsuit, and when it came to court, Gastrich couldn't even be bothered to show up! And Ralph...I know what you're saying about "free speech," and no one is denying Gastrich free speech, but encyclopedias are not about free speech, they are about information, and that means all the information that is pertinent, not just what the subject of the article would like you to know.
• Delete. Self-promotion (music lessons?). -Willmcw 22:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean http://jasongastrich.com/recallsongs.htm ? Dunc|☺ 22:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like an orchestrated effort to create notability for a non-notable subject. Jasmol 00:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everyone Ashibaka (tock) 01:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious nn vanity (11 votes for Governor?!?). --Calton - Talk 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gastrich is non-notable and a perennial troublemaker, here and elsewhere. FeloniousMonk 02:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FeloniousMonk and Duncharris are known Gastrich-haters. If he says black, they say white. They also have a specific, anti-Christian agenda (with a particular anti-fundamentalist/creatonist slant, of which Gastrich is part of) that can be seen throughout Wiki and Usenet. For instance, see revert war and comments in Anthony Flew's entry. --Big Daddy 03:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like you have a slant of your own: WP:NPA FeloniousMonk 04:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everyone who goes to the Antony Flew entry can see the POV pushing by Gastrich. You don't want to use that as an example.Harvestdancer 05:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This Entry Should Stay. --Vera Six Dr. Jason Gastrich, college professor and internationally known even here in Germany, is an author of several books and should not be insulted here but kept and petted. He surely is an enrichment, and people love him for his numerous Wikipedia entries, e-mail devotionals, or his wonderful web site. He should really be listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.134.120.26 (talk • contribs)
  • [P]eople love him for his numerous Wikipedia entries. I'm sure they'll continue to love him even if he has fewer, or no, entries. -Willmcw 04:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT> 12:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• this entry should stay. even in the uk dr. gastrich is a respected christian author. i love his websites and the enrichment he brings to christian life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.48.47 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Probably not notable enough an author. Most of the info provided (40 day fast, soccer coach, etc.) seems superfluous. If the article remains, it should at least be scaled down, perhaps only mentioning his few published works and governor run. Everything else is clearly a vanity piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.199.237 (talk • contribs)
• Retain. Dr. Jason Gastrich, through his writings and debates and web pages, has become a force in Christian apologetics and evangelism. One correction seems needed, however. A few years ago he wrote of changing his middle name to "Jesus." The article should include his full legal name. -- FH, Nov. 15, 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.36.126 (talk • contribs)
• retain this entry should remain, As an author and lecturer we need to hear all viewpoints and not quash some because we do not agree. keep the debate going... what do you fear?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.200 (talk • contribs)
• Why is this entry even being debated? It doesn't matter whether Jason Gastrich is on here or not, because it doesn't matter who is on here! Why is anybody saying he shouldn't? Do you want a totally controlled and bised site? Do you want only entries that you approve of? That is at the least, the socialistic LIMITING of free speech. The same thing happened in Germany, Russia, North Korea,even Canada and Sweden are entering that same preliminary controlling of the free press. Whoever opposes Jason Gastrich's entries here, are entering a dark and forboding realm of communistic limiting of not only free speech, but the controlling of the dissemination of knowledge...from all areas. To limit knowledge is dispicable, and robs people of the freedm to choose their path based on ALL viewpoints. --68.248.11.90 03:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)onewhoknowswhatmatters.[reply]
• This entry should stay. Jason Gastrich has ministered to many and has had a positive impact on people in this world. He is a noteable writer and is passionate about what he believes in, for the good of all. Again, my vote is that the entry stays...
• PLEASE ALLOW JASON TO KEEP HIS PAGE.. !! PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW IT TO BE DELETED.. THANX Rinu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.22 (talk • contribs)
• Added some comments. I hope this is all that was required or should I also email the admins?
  • I think Jason is a cool dude. He stands for the truth and opposes the Atheists lies. Many of the Atheists hate him and this is a sure sign that Jason is being persecuted for the truth.
  • Matt. 5:11 ¶ “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
  • Matt. 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
  • If you want to chat about Jason please do not hesitate to email me. You may find my address on my web page.
  • http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.198.22 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. Is it a personal attack to say that on good evidence, i.e., direct revelations, every time you do not form a possessive correctly God kills a kitten? Anville 11:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's when you wank. — Dunc|☺ 11:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these partisan rants by supporters of keeping him have swayed me. PatGallacher 19:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity page for minor religious figure, apparent "notability" pumped up by sockpuppets. MCB 20:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I already voted to Keep the entry, so I won't vote again. It should be noted though that "Jason Gastrich" has over 58,000 search results in Google, over 40,000 results in Usenet, and over 51,000 in Yahoo. Not to mention, the organization that he directs (Jesus Christ Saves Ministries) has over 221,000 search results in Google.--Big Daddy 01:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Google only shows 196 unique hits for "Jason Gastrich". The tens of thousands of other hits may be mirrors, etc. -Willmcw 09:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While he might possibly be infamous, the sockpuppets have muddied the waters so much it's difficult to tell, and clearly it's going to be difficult sustaining an objective article when the only Wikipedia editor interested in the man is himself. Naturally AfD is not cleanup, but I don't think Wikipedia is really going to miss this article, so I err on the side of deletion. --Last Malthusian 09:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These certainly don't look like sockpuppets. Anyhow, there are two points to consider. First, the ruling admins will be able to see everyone's IP address and he or she will know whether or not these are sockpuppets or people from all over the country and the world who are weighing in on this issue. Next, voting to delete simply on the assumption that these are sockpuppets is absolutely absurd. Votes such as these should be significantly devalued.--Big Daddy 18:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, "all over the country and the world" as in "open proxies." 213.42.0.0/16 contains a number of open proxies and at least one unsigned comment in support of this page has come through 213.42.2.22 which is very interesting don't you think? Mark K. Bilbo 20:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain: It is not difficult understanding why some people want this entry deleted. Even if some people feel they have personal problems with the entry, the information given in the entry is beneficial for many. Has someone noted the vulgar and hate speech some of those who want the entry deleted have resorted to?--Cilmin, 18 November, 2005.
• Hi! Thank You so much for letting us be apart of the in-put! Jason as usual has gone to great lengths to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Yes you will have opposition. What would faith be without it in our world?. But at the same time Our great Nation depends on differences of opinion and allows each party to talk,show,discuss, But NEVER DELETES or ILLIMINATES the other opinion!Its what makes our country so great! If you know anything about any of his sites -You know the time effort and personal touch that goes into his information and discussions and sharing of Faith! Jason's site should be allowed to stay and let more people see for themselves. Thank You! - 64.136.27.225 http://TheHelpMeets.com
  • Yeah, and Wikipedia can charge him for advertising, and use the money for hardware upgrades! — B.Bryant 06:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom --DanielCD 20:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete VERY non-notable, VERY vanity, VERY self-promotion. I wouldn't be surprised if several of those voting to keep were Gastrich himself. It is not of encyclopedic value, and sould be SPEEDY deleted. The most notable thing about Gastrich is when he was involved in the edit war at Antony Flew and he tried to insert a link to his website there. Harvestdancer 05:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harvestdancer's comments aren't only absurd, but they're willfully dishonest. Click here and see how Harvestdancer almost daily talks about Jason Gastrich (in a Google Group designed just to talk about Gastrich) and has it out for him.--Big Daddy 06:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC) "Big Daddy" is Gastrich, and there are several comments in this "discussion" written by Gastrich.[reply]
    • What has that got to do with whether his claim is true or not? — B.Bryant 06:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing more than an Ad Hominem attempt to defuse an argument he can't refute. Anyone who goes to that external site will notice that my criticisms are actually in the form of advice that could be beneficial to him.Harvestdancer 15:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely a vanity entry, designed to promote and sell a product (the e-book) using Wiki as a free advertising platform.
• Delete If he deserves an article it's only because he's a well-known self-promoting Usenet kook. — B.Bryant 06:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very self serving and I find the fasting claim both erroneous and mildly offensive. Erroneous because the first time he only fasted for 36 days according to the text, not 40, further, how on earth does anyone know that only a few have doen this. Offensve because there are people starving to death every day who undoubtedly beat his 40 day record hands down.

• RetainYes it's something of a vanity page, but Jason is a coming man and Wikipedia maintains pages about many flamboyant religious figures. Both leaders and frauds, Jason will probably be one of them in a few years.

Retain.

• Delete The only reason Gastrich posted this page is to promote his web sites and sell his "book."
• Delete per nomination. If someone wants a vanity page, there are plenty of web hosts out there. Mark K. Bilbo 15:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gastrich is not an important figure in North American Fundamentalist. That's how he sees himself, and I don't think it does any good to inflate his importance.

Delete********** This guy seems to be on a ego trip. He has very little credibility.

• Delete Not only is there an ego trip involved here, but I could have sworn I saw lots more "delete" votes. Several as well as other comments have been obviously deleted.
• Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ Saves Ministries (JSCM is Jason) — Dunc|☺ 20:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tuohirulla 20:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it until it stays deleted, and then Delete it again just to be sure. wikipediatrix 21:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and protect the page or something. What a mess! The information in the article is clearly not encyclopedic in the least. - squibix 22:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we agree on at least one thing, Squibix. With the addition of Dave Horn's (138.162.140.45) soap opera/editorial/opinions/conjecture, the article isn't very encyclopedic. However, before he tampered with it, it did resemble other Wiki entries on authors, evangelists, professors, etc.--Big Daddy 22:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Jason, what it looked like was an advertising and promotion piece for your ministry and yourself. Can you imagine an article about Peter Popoff that didn't include his exposure as a fraud, or one about Jimmy Swaggart that did not include his famous "I have sinned" speech after being caught with prostitutes? An encyclopedia entry is not one that must needs be limited to whatever the subject wants others to see. Sometimes, it has to include things that the subject may wish to have hidden.
    • Jason, I notice you want us to believe that you have a degree in psychology, but here, on your campaign site, you tell us that your degree is in "Liberal Arts and Sciences (Psychology)," which tells me that the degree is not in psych, but in a more general area, and you probably took quite a few courses in psych, just not enough to get a degree in it. You do understand the difference, don't you?
• Delete User:Ejrrjs says What? 23:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and lock, provisions, "vanity," and "not notable."

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.