Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Randall

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 to delete, defaulting to keep. STANDARD SPIEL: NO CONSENSUS NOW DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE FORMATION OF CONSENSUS IN THE FUTURE. ANY DECISION TO MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER SHOULD BE MADE BASED ON DISCUSSION ON THE TALK, NOT ON THIS AFD. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD'S RESULT IN FAVOUR OF KEEPING THE ARTICLE AS IS OR REDIRECTING IT IN THE EVENT OF A REVERT WAR. Johnleemk | Talk 11:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Randall[edit]

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 00:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. SycthosTalk 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The school he's president of might be notable, but he isn't. Delete. A.J.A. 05:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. - WarriorScribe 06:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. his qualifications are from a diploma mill. self-styled religious leader.Blnguyen 06:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some sort of purging of certain religious figures going on, and it is becoming difficult to stick to the assumption of good faith. This one is an Easy Keep, via Wikipedia:Notability. "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." This subject meets the qualification with two of the publications he edited/wrote for.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaysuschris (talk • contribs) .
  • There's no reason to doubt good faith if the complete information is not in the article and a deletion nomination is made based on what is there, as well as the record of the article writer for posting a number of articles about people of questionable notability. If there is information available that makes the person notable according to WP:BIO, perhaps passing on laziness (or an attempt to inflate contribution numbers by posting many small, largely substanceless articles instead of a few, good, informative articles) might better serve the purpose of Wikipedia. What do you think? - WarriorScribe 07:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first priority is not to delete articles that don't seem up to snuff, but to make them better. Perhaps the accusation of laziness applies somewhere in this mess. Four seconds on google gets you the circulation numbers for the publications the subject edited. That's all it takes to know this is a keep. Not to mention his position at his institution. - Jaysus Chris 07:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see your point, but I think that deleting articles that are not up to snuff should be some level of priority, if not the first. I would add that it's not up to the reader to do the research to see if the party or institution is notable--something in the article should indicate that, even if it's a short article that the writer intends to come back to, later. For example, I intend to start adding articles on some writers of history and some scientists that I think should get some coverage, but if I were to do that and only add as a "stub," I think I'd make it a point to get the notability in there--something other than "is a professor and author." Neither of those things is good enough and it would serve me right if someone came along an deleted it because it contained insufficient information. We all have time issues and we can all understand that one might want to start an article and add to it, later. That's cool. Get whatever makes that person or institution notable in there, first. Then, if you have to come back to it later (maybe even much later), it'll probably still be there, even if still a "stub." Sorry...I have no sympathy for lazy writers. I'm a tad "old school" that way. - WarriorScribe 07:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that the reader shouldn't have to hunt for notability. But when, through the magic of Wikipedia, we become the editors, we have an obligation to make sure we're not deleting useful information. I guess that's what this process is all about, but I think the default position should be "let's see if this is appropriate" versus "AFD anything I'm not familiar with that doesn't make a bold claim for notability". My opinion. - Jaysus Chris 08:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there's a difference, too--a fine one, I'll grant--between what some might view as "notable" (Wiki's standards are a tad over-encompassing, after all) and what is "useful." These kinds of articles are not generally useful. They read like bios from corporate literature, and too often don't qualify as encyclopedic. However, I certainly think that your opinion is well-considered and valid, even if I'm not convinced that anyone is really taking the latter "default position." - WarriorScribe 12:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some think that deleting articles risks losing valuable information, just because that valuable information or proof of notability isn't there yet. It doesn't. The article can be recreated with those things without being speedily deleted, and articles have been recreated in this way. See Godcasting - it was initially (rightly) deleted, then eventually recreated with the necessary information it lacked the first time, reAfDed and kept. Admittedly there was a lot of unnecessary drama on the way and I could probably pick a better example, but then it was a Christian-related subject, so so much for the evil atheistic cabal. --Malthusian (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is notable enough. Logophile 07:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, anyone can write religious magazines, every school has a leader, and apparently pretty much anyone can get a diploma from LBU. To meet WP:BIO we need evidence that people outside himself and his flock have paid him or his magazines any attention. Google searches on him and his magazines suggest that they haven't. --Malthusian (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. California12 02:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is nothing in the article that suggests notability. If he falls under some criterion from WP:BIO - for example, having written for a magazine with a circulation of at least 5,000 - then evidence for this needs to be clearly documented here. If this will be the case, I will change my vote. Until then, we've got a person who does not sound like he has done anything significant enough to be considered notable. --Pierremenard 11:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pierremenard. I detest nn-bio's. Zunaid 14:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As far as I can tell he's a pastor (hundreds of thousands of those) and he's the president of a diploma mill (don't want to guess how many presidents of diploma mills there have ever been). Nothing about any of this says "notable". Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
President of a diploma mill? It is these sorts of ignorant accusations that make me upset. He's the president of a regionally accredited university. If you would have bothered to look at Baptist_Bible_College_-_Springfield,_Missouri, you would have known this. Will you consider changing your vote, now? --Jason Gastrich 21:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning and the Louisiana Baptist University. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A guy who is the head of a university, but has no proper degrees from a proper university, would suggest that the "university" he leads is some tin-pot crackpot self-declared intellectual hotbed. Has this guy ever published any of his work in a respected research journal?? Blnguyen 23:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough on his own. He deserves mention, maybe, on the pages of the colleges that allegedly make him notable, but he's not notable enough on his own. -Harvestdancer 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete president of a college with all of 700 students? I don't see the notablitiy here. Mark K. Bilbo 19:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Obviously notable president of a regionally accredited university. --Jason Gastrich 21:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Watch Out Potential branchstacking : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].Blnguyen 02:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, I stumbled into this mess of my own accord, and was later encouraged to vote in other AFDs by the original contributor (The last link above). There were a handful of easy keeps among the indiscriminant AFD noms by User:A.J.A. and I wanted to point that out. I'm not getting in to the marginal ones. All my votes/comments are legit and as disinterested as I can be. - Jaysus Chris 08:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like the rest Gastrich has wasted yet more irreplaceable minutes of our lives. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what you're complaining about, Juzzy. You're at least Christian and have eternal life, the rest of us have to mentally divide the minutes we spend trying to get rid of vanity articles into our mere 70-80 years ;-) --Malthusian (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gastrich, where notable is replaced with the more appropriate non-notable. Eusebeus 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, with the additional comment that this person is less notable than the average British vice-chancellor, many of whom do not have articles. --kingboyk 00:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion above, seems to be quite non-notable. David D. (Talk) 16:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Strong) President of a very well known (albeit insanely conservative) school. He also is a published author. I think we can work on the article, but no reason to delete. Brokenfrog 20:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Published by whom? Read by whom? Nothing's stopping YOU from making it better and relevant.
  • Strong Keep university-related topics are notable. Cynical 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Edits two magazines with circulation > 5,000 and thus satisfies WP:BIO. The LBU stuff doesn't reflect well on him as a person, but doesn't really matter one way or the other for bio standards. -Colin Kimbrell 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I read the article very carefully and did not see a single reference to anything notable that he did. He went to this school and that (I went to schools too), he's had this job and that (I've had jobs too)...but no mention of anything he did that made some kind of difference, or gained him noteriety. So he's the president of an unaccredited institution...what did he do that makes him interesting to the public at large? bcatt 22:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Edits two magazines with circulation greater than 5,000, which certainly seems to satisfy the spirit of WP:BIO. -Colin Kimbrell 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is I said before, he's the president of a regionally accredited university;[8] which is the highest accreditation that the government can provide in the United States. Will this make you change your vote? --Jason Gastrich 02:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What argument is that?
  • Keep, per User:Jaysuschris. This article seems to satisfy WP:BIO. Banes 07:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Colin Kimbrell ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to meet WP:BIO. Alphax τεχ 07:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jaysus Chris. Rogue 9 10:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would like to think that semi-notable atheist figures would be given the same respect. --StuffOfInterest 12:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 16:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per WP:BIO. Kerobaros 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. User:Jaysuschris has made a great argument, which should be taken into account. Randall's obviously someone worthy to be included in an encyclopedia. He has experience and looks pretty damn intelligent. References and everything. What more do you want? - The Great Gavini lobster telephone
  • Strong Keep Itake 15:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. Justin Eiler 16:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPOV, published with large readership, President of a University.Wynler 17:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep same as above. --Yonghokim 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see little reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep. I see little reason to delete this article. Salva veritate! Lerner 18:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I dont think this guy is notable of his own right, but his work related to the school warrents him inclusion there.  ALKIVAR™ 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons expressed by Colin Kimbrell. Failing that, merge and redirect to Baptist Bible College - Springfield, Missouri. Hall Monitor 18:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --Hayson 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His only claim to fame seems to be that he's president of an (accredited) institution once attended by Jerry Falwell. Even if we merge and redirect to Baptist Bible College - Springfield, Missouri, what then happens when he leaves? Andrewa 21:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Seems notable enough.the1physicist 22:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Baptist Bible College - Springfield, Missouri. Being the president of that school is the only thing for which he's notable that I've seen in the article, and to address Andrewa's concern, if he becomes notable for something else, then recreate the article and make sure to mention that. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My concern wasn't what happens if and when he becomes notable in his own right, I think that's easy. The problem is with a merge and redirect. Even if as current president he deserves a mention on the article on the college, he probably won't merit one as a past president (unlike Neal Weaver for example who it seems likely will). So, if we merge and redirect, we'll later be deleting the redirect. IMO, if he's notable now, it means we're expecting him to remain notable after he leaves the college. Any clearer? No change of vote. Andrewa 23:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Weak Merge. Soon we'll be seeing bios on every almuna and alumnus.
  • weak keep: compact, but short, I think not only scientists, but teachers and priests too can be notable. Gubbubu
  • Delete Jim62sch 02:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATTENTION Jason Gastrich wrote these series of 12 articles attends the school in question and has been known to used sock puppets, plus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Where do you get the facts to backup the claim that User Jason Gastrich used multiple accounts to further his articles? Now this is going out hand. When you people turn to personal attacks and blatant lies and slandering, it gets personal. Itake 01:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gastrich is saying those who want to delete the articles have "bad faith." If that's not pressuring for ballot stuffing nothing is. No insinuation. Facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Jason_Gastrich Arbustoo 03:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you'll get used to it. Opposing any opinion of Gastrich is "bad faith," "harrassment," "persecution of Christians" and, anyway, you do it because you're an atheist who "hates Jesus." Why, I'm downright scum. It's a cross I bear. Mark K. Bilbo 03:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never called you scum. If I did though, it would be only a fraction of the negative things you commonly say to Christians. As you know very well, I've never cursed you, but I've summarized the things you've said, with cited quotations, for your Wikipedia entry;(see Talk:Mark K. Bilbo#Controversy) only to have a couple of your friends delete them. For those who wish to see the truth about Mark Bilbo, I've compiled 11 or 12 links to his statements on Usenet where he swears at Christians, calls them names, and mocks Jesus and God. So, as I was saying, I don't judge you and I don't call you names. However, you frequently open your mouth and do reputable atheists a disservice by the things that come out of it. --Jason Gastrich 05:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough --Vizcarra 02:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Arbustoo 03:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep—notable per WP:BIO: chief editor of and regular contributor to magazines, one with a circulation of over 5000 copies and membership including some 3500 Baptist preachers, another one with a circulation of over 32,000 copies, reaching an estimated 100,000 people. The latter writes about him: "An interim editor, Mike Randall, was appointed and subsequently became permanent editor in May" (1995).... "He is well known for his business acumen, ministry and publishing experience and has earned the respect of a broad cross-section of the Fellowship.". This article cannot be voted away if Delete voters do not even try to explain why WP:BIO would not apply here. AvB ÷ talk 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Dear Advertiser: Thank you for your interest in the Baptist Bible Tribune... The Tribune circulation is over 32,000, reaching over 100,000 people". So they claim to have a circulation of over 32,000 - to a prospective advertiser no less. That does not meet WP:BIO, as they claim to have over 32,000 readers, but there is no third-party verification here. --Malthusian (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes - "Every foreign missionary of the Baptist Bible Fellowship International (currently almost 900) and all the students in our approved colleges receive a copy." So not only is it handed out free, but you don't even get a say in whether you get one or not. That means that 32,000 figure has to be taken with an even bigger grain of salt (several grains of salt?) We deleted Bath Impact, the Bath University fish wrapper, for this reason. --Malthusian

(talk) 20:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the figure is not correct, they are swindling their advertizers (at USD 1000 a page no less). Somehow I do not find the argument that we need third-party confirmation convincing. AvB ÷ talk 21:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not saying the figure is a lie. I'm saying that sending a free magazine to 32,000 people who are automatically signed up when they enter college is not the same as 32,000 people actually going to a newsagent and buying it. Advertising is an extremely painful market and everyone involved has finely-tuned bullshit detectors. When a free newspaper tells an advertiser they have 32,000 readers, they will automatically think in terms of how many people actually read it and don't just dump it straight in the bin. We need to do the same. --Malthusian (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there anywhere near 31,100 students enrolled in Baptist colleges? AvB ÷ talk 01:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable in my book. His contributions to the magazine mentioned by AvB are just reports on what's happening at his school rather than significant articles. Would we have an article on the guy who puts together the weather report of a national newspaper? By the way, I, like Stuffofinterest, would like to think that semi-notable atheist figures would be given the same respect... and deleted. --Spondoolicks 19:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this were so, that would leave The Baptist Preacher. Which means he is notable amongst Baptists which in MY book is sufficient qualification to warrant inclusion in WP. As far as I know this may well be one of the reasons for the very low cutoff point of 5,000 copies. However, The Baptist Bible Tribune is not online. How can you be sure that Randall only contributes "reports on what's happening at his school"? Oh, and if you can point me to an atheist's (or indeed anyone's) bio article being AfD'd while having met the 5,000 WP:BIO limit, I'll be happy to come over and vote and argue for that article to be kept. AvB ÷ talk 20:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Serious meatpuppetry in progress here. Stifle 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Article is about unnotable with promotion links to his websites/ministry. This is basically a spam article. Arbustoo 02:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain with preference to merge. Little known, but would be great if merged. Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]
  • Keep The individual clearly exists Kurt Weber 17:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, existing is not valid keep critereon.Gateman1997 08:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ought to be speedied as nn-bio, really. Ashibaka tock 18:55, 23 January 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/Mike_Randall&oldid=1138082061"