Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cwod

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete, but the page was speedy deleted anyway by Rick. bainer (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cwod

The subject of the article is a non-notable teacher of some sort. I originally marked it to be speedied, but I think the article has reached the point where it should be brought here. --Canderson7 01:53, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

there are many other useless articles on Wiki that you can spend your time deleting. I did not know that removing the speedy was a violation (whoops) but atleast its back now...err, was. Also, like the note says, the page is currently being broadcast to others to add their own information. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

Retort #2:

The subject of the article is a non-notable teacher of some sort. While this may be true to you, others do know of him. Just because I do not know what happened on July 23, 1321 AD does not make that date unimportant. Notable is based on one's knowledge of a subject and the relative importance of said subject. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

I originally marked it to be speedied, Yes, you did. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

but I think the article has reached the point where it should be brought here. I do not see the logic behind bringing this page to this point, other than a few mistakes a new user can make. In accordance with Wiki's standards, it is NOT vandalism, and it is a work in progess, both of which are NOT reasonable causes for deletion! (edit by 69.23.252.110)

Delete definitely not notable. - Etacar11 02:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refutation #3: If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can ever imagine. <--- Writing a paper in Spanish while trying to debate this with you. Give me a bit to reply. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

Delete. Not notable. To the anonymous contributor(s): lack of notability is independent of the complete/incomplete state of the article. Adding reams of text will not make the subject more notable. See also Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. --Tabor 02:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comeback #4 (for lack of a better word): Cwod does however have a claim to fame. Unlike most US citizens, he gave the speech prior to the current US President (he also introduced him) when the President appeared at <school> . See below: Memorials. It's always sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

It seems that this would be a claim to fame...

You may think so; others may disagree. The VfD process is the accepted way of making that determination. --Tabor 02:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, vanity, etc. CryptoDerk 02:24, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not encyclopaedic. --bainer (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final Statement: Wow, that didnt go like a debate like it should have. Just a bunch of people ignoring evidence and not analyizing the facts carefully. Since logic does not work here apparently, I will join the choir of people who wish to "make Wikipedia the free encyclopedia" by deleting every page under construction. Imagine if someone controlled the Internet and decided to delete every page that was under construction. Over 50% of the Internet would be gone. The invalid and untrue logic of the above arguments almost makes me want to lose faith in the human race. We are intelligent beings. We can debate and analyize in an orderly fashion. Yet, there are those who chose to yell "The sky is falling" without even checking if it actually is. Question every thing, debate where applicable, and analyize! Guaranteed to make the human race a better, more advanced society. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

We don't want to delete it because it's under construction, we want to delete it because it is not encyclopaedic. Articles about some teacher at some small school are not important. --bainer (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small school and <school> in the same sentence. Funny! Since you do not know highschool sizes, EPHS is once of the largest highschools in the United States, and easily the largest highschool in the state it is located in. If you do not know what state it is in, get off of Wikipedia and use Google.com for a bit. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

Oh, an encyclopedia (as defined by Webster [isnt he the first dictionary guy? Oh, nevermind, he was not "notable"]) is this (edit by 69.23.252.110)

Actually, Noah Webster's definition was worded a bit differently [1] --Tabor 02:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --drini ☎ 02:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What the hell are you talking about? Noah Webster is very notable, and Mr. Whoever isn't. Also, cut that "losing faith in humanity" shit out; if you are this upset over losing a debate then perhaps debating is not for you. --EvilZak 02:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This will be deleted shortly, but with the hope that Mr. EvilZak sees this: Perhaps using above a 3rd grade vocabulary is not for you. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

Delete: A teacher. I'm sure he's a memorable instructor. However, he is not sufficiently notable to be properly included in an encyclopedia. We are neither the high school year book nor Who's Who in US Education. Geogre 03:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wowzerz! Sry to cause so much trouble :P Just kill the page already --Rhyeal 03:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suggest author go hang out at Eden Prairie Center (or whatever else it is you EP kids do these days) rather than waste time on Wiki. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 03:46, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete So, 200 people out of 6+ billion know him. Not notable. Xcali 04:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author of the article's mudslinging notwithstanding, the individual is not notable. Force10 05:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with all delete votes above. --Metropolitan90 05:29, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Call bluff -- the author says the page will be used to prove the subject's notability. Fine: give the page until close of vote, then lock it and renominate as it then is. If enough people then feel the article is justified, let it stay; if this proves to be educ-cruft, then delete --Simon Cursitor 06:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Frjwoolley 15:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles on individual non-notable teachers at individual (debatably notable) high schools are inherently non-verifiable. ESkog 16:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted for the taunts made here and the taunts on the article and the threat to bring in over 200 other students to write more drek. Rick K 19:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.