Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Ruckman

Add links
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. Mailer Diablo 00:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ruckman[edit]

Vanity for an unaccredited school president/founder with the edits being made by an anon user and User:PSRuckman. Arbusto 01:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepWhile every suggestion deserves to be examined on the basis of its own merit, one cannot (or should not) separate this one from the edits that the above user has made to this page. He/she has worked on the page for some time (and continues to do so) and wants it removed because simply because he/she is not getting his/her way all of the time. The best defense he/she has for his/her behavior is that he/she is being personally attacked. To point out repetition in sentences separated by a single sentence, for example, is (to him/her) a personal attack. No need to take my word for it (since I am so mean, offensive, and nasty), read the edits.
  • Delete, non-notable. Royboycrashfan 02:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. · rodii · 02:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Keep. The more I look into this the more it seems "Ruckmanism" is an honest-to-god notable issue for many fundamentalist/KJV-only Christians. This goes beyond his presidency of a bible college. Incoming links from a variety of unchallenged articles too.  ·  rodii  ·  05:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Arbusto has made numerous inconsistent edits (removing links because Wiki "is not a links page" and then adding his/her own choice of links) and seems to have a poor handle on the language (failing to see repetition in the presentation). In addition, User Arbusto objects to links to notable graduates of the institution - a standard feature of colleges and universities on Wiki. While the institution in question is not accredited (something the entry itself admits), it is mentioned on several other Wiki pages, none of which have been edited by any of the individuals User Arbusto singles out. Thus, the singling out exercise is a mere distraction, and a sily one at that. Clearly User Arbusto has not done his/her homework regarding the significance of this institution and its presence on Wiki apart from this entry. Wiki would do itself a great disservice to allow someone of this mindset to have any influence over the decision to retain an entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.152.119.232 (talk • contribs)].--Isotope23 18:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Please sign your edits by appending ~~~~. And rather than attacking the nominator (who is a known quantity with an established track record, whereas you are anonymous) and bringing in unrelated articles, you should be concentrating on explaining why this article should be kept. A nomination for deletion is not a personal attack--it's a judgment about the encyclopedicity of an article. If you disagree, say why or improve the article.  ·  rodii  ·  04:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is being filled with non notable religious leaders. Is this a marketing stunt? David D. (Talk) 04:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also see: Ruckmanism for related interest. Arbusto 05:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciate the coaching, but what you have written does not having any bearing on the inconsistent edits or poor use of the language. If he/she has a "known" for this sort of thing, he/she should be suspended. While you are dismissing factual considerations as personal attacks, note all of the time, energy and effort the "known" Arbusto has put into editing a page that he/she now wants removed. It is clear that he/she must have his/her way or everyone suffers. "Established track record" eh? Ho ho ho! —The preceding comment was added by 172.139.42.192
  • Dear Santa: WP:DICK.  ·  rodii  ·  05:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Rodii: If that is the best you have, then that is the best you have.
  • Weak delete, not quite notable enough, although the (questionable) books are a plus. 172.139.42.192, you are hurting your own cause quite a lot. Grandmasterka 05:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, given that the "nominator is out to get me!" rationale is among the most commonly employed on these pages, I'm surprised it's not numbered, for convenience. Someone ought to make a list of unconvincing/red flag arguments that includes this, and you can throw in the "knows the rules better than you" and "liberal use of hand-waving adjectives/adverbs like 'clear(ly)' and 'obvious(ly)'" . In any case, on its merits, Delete as non-notable. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ApologiesArbusto has finally recognized that his repeated edits were below the standards of 9th grade, public school English. It only took him three attempts. Meanwhile, your paranoid user routine addressed nothing and shed no light on anything. Bad writing will always be bad writing. Learn to cope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.201.150 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 28 February 2006
Guess my public school English was only good enough to get me my current job. <sigh> · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, or PSRuckman will come along and correct your English. To American. (yes, click the link, it'll give you a chuckle) Just zis Guy you know? 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My "paranoid user routine" addresses a common -- and frankly pathetic -- tactic employed by new users who, lacking valid arguments for or feeling insecure about notability, neutrality, importance, verifiability and other such normal encyclopedic and scholarly standards for self-promotion, original unpublished research, or obsessive fancruft they try to introduce here, feel the need to resort to out of clear and apparent desperation. But, being new, you don't realize how transparent and ineffective these attempts to bully opinion are -- indeed, they often backfire -- because, being new, you don't realize how moldy and hackneyed the tactics are -- the suggestion that they be numbered is for the convenience of experienced editors who are responding to them, to save typing. Your particular act, I'm afraid, is so old it has whiskers, and if you're frustrated that it's being challenged...well, learn to cope. --Calton | Talk 13:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (despite 172.139.42.192) as it seems plausible that users may be looking to WP for info on this person, and Notability standard is a work in progress. - TRDriver 08:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 10:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in Ruckmanism and Keep.::Supergolden:: 12:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it seems that Ruckman's principal claims to fame are heading an unaccredited college (unaccredited? who'd have guessed?) and being an author; his books are published by a publisher which looks very much as if it exists primarily to publish his books. This looks like a walled garden to me. I see no credible evidence of wider coverage (zero Google News hits, for example) and though he may indeed be a figure of some note within the KJ Only movement, that is itself a minor movement. Above all, I am having serious trouble finding appropriately neutral coverage of him from reliable sources, I'd say the article is functionally unverifiable from a neutral POV, and the subject is in any case of questionable notability. Just zis Guy you know? 12:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not just an unaccredited school, but a PO Box.[1] Good luck even finding a webpage for the school, a faculty list, or a course list. Arbusto 08:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not just a PO Box: Pensacola Bible Institute 1171 Jojo Rd., Pensacola, FL 32514 850-476-1387. Google hit #6 for "Pensacola Bible Institute." That doesn't mean anything except that it exists, of course, but I don't really know what the issue is here. Ruckman is widely known even if the PBI is a toolshed. BTW: here's what loathsome but very notable uber-creep Jack Chick has to say: [2].  ·  rodii  ·  22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do a reverse address check on that address then tell me what you think that address is. Arbusto 03:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rodii's change of heart, and several very good Google links, including the following from http://www.christianseparatist.org/briefs/sb2.13.html (sorry, but I just can't resist, and have to quote it...): "For anyone not familiar with Peter S. Ruckman, I can tell you in short that he is an antichrist, mongrel-minded, Jew-loving scumbag. However, he is frequently cited as a scholarly authority..." While that clearly doesn't meet the letter of JzG's above criteria of "appropriately neutral coverage", I kind of somehow think it meets their spirit. :-) GRuban 14:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:BIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep but needs to be re-worked into NPOV world. Rob 15:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course: Peter Ruckman has more hits on Google than everyone in this discussion combined. That should pretty much settle it. It is quite clear that this request is a mere rationalization for displeasure that one person's edits were called into question (see the history of the entry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.150.46.94 (talk • contribs)
Comment I'm amused by the idea that only editors with hits on Google should be able to argue to delete articles. I still think the article should be kept, but I sort of wish some people weren't on my side in this. GRuban 16:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, didn't you know you don't exist if Google doesn't index you? Thank God I get 6 pages... [3].--Isotope23 18:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many times is this anon. user going to insult strangers with false assumptions? Arbusto 08:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ruckman's statements are well-documented. He is one of the best-known polarizing figures in Christian theology. He appears to carry a lot of clout in this field. He is almost certainly notable.  Cdcon  19:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After doing a Google search, I found lots of articles about, referring to, opposing, supporting, villifying, and canonizing Ruckman and his teachings. There's hundreds of different sources regarding him and discussing his theological viewpoints (WP:V is definately NOT a problem here). I really can't see any reason why this should be deleted. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, the notion that the person was not notable was not based on any empirical evidence. It was based on personal ignorance, animosity toward the topic, or immaturity with respect to editing. Arbusto (is that is his real name? oh it just HAS to be!) would like to frame that as a personal insult, but, really, what are the other options, given the empirical evidence. Notability should be based on information, not personal bias, ignorance or animosity.
  • Anon 64.107.201.150, Please read WP:CIVIL and at least try to abide by it. No reason to be a WP:DICK just because you don't agree with User:Arbustoo.--Isotope23 19:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge Ruckmanism into this article -- Astrokey44|talk 00:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Metamagician3000 06:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, despite the ballot stuffing by sockpuppets. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and merge Ruckmanism into here. --kingboyk 19:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:PSRuckman should probably be discouraged from editing this article, for obvious reasons. Just zis Guy you know? 20:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I assume PSRuckman and our prickly anon are the same, and a quick google will tell you the likely identity. Editing articles about family members is always tricky territory.  ·  rodii  ·  22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI see nothing that indicates anyone is a family member, but, you are right. Arbusto (or Arbustoo) is getting his booty worn out. The repitition in the first three sentences was hilarious! Go Arbutoooooo! GlimmTwin
The fact that User:PSRuckman edited three articles about people named Ruckman, and that one of them, the subject of this article, has a son named...wait for it...P.S. Ruckman doesn't "indicate" a family relationship to you? OK then. I just got trolled, didn't I?  ·  rodii  · 
CommentLOL. Sweet. Was focusing on the edits not the persons. GlimmTwin

Comment We seem to have some serious sockpuppet problems going on here and on the associated deletion pages. See my comment here [4]. JoshuaZ 19:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment all the more reason this article should go. BTW look at the article's edits. Arbusto 20:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of vandals, sockpuppets and POV edits is not intrinsically related to the whether or not Wikipedia should have a version of the article. JoshuaZ 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be of interest for those on the fence though. Arbusto 03:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JoshuaZ. There should be a "please, get off my side" template. GRuban 14:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Ruckman&oldid=1073734341"