Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre dehon

 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. Golbez 21:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Andre dehon
Seems a little too much like vanity to me. I fail to see how it would meet conditions of Importance so I'm putting it up on VfD. I abstain. Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions 05:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * User just added Andr%E9_DeHon which i am assuming is to be dealt with here as well as it is an exact replica of Andre dehon.
 * Nevermind that, that page got speedied. Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions 06:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Vanity Daniel Case 05:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all articles on teachers so long as all articles on schools are kept, though move to proper capitalization. RickK 05:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I agree with RickK in a sense, but only notable teachers should be kept. Assistant profs don't fit this bill. Jamyskis 07:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I agree completely with Jamyskis -CunningLinguist 07:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Doesn't pass the Random J. Professor test. An assistant prof. Geogre 12:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anybody else think RickK is being a trifle sarcastic? As much as I like keeping academics, he really isn't exceptionally notable. --Scimitar 14:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete no case for notability in the article. --Etacar11 23:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete sad to see another case of unhelpful sarcasm from RickK. Obviously, if Schools are kept, that is less of a reason to keep even marginally notable personnel, who might be included in the school article. Xoloz 04:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, agree with Rick although this article is borderline at best. JamesBurns 06:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * When it comes to schools, I am neither a "deletionist" nor an "inclusionist" -- I may never vote on one. I think it'll be quite sad, though, if Wikipedia expands to include more articles of questionable notability because of a rise in sarcastic/"cutting-off-the-nose-to-spite-the-face" votes.  I suspect this strategy will only result, eventually, in all teachers being included, because I'm sure many "inclusionists" would rather add teachers then delete schools.  If some voters formerly inveterately opposed to schools honestly believe that school inclusion is logically irreconcilable with teacher deletion, then so be it.  In all earnestness, however, and without personally impugning anybody, I have to wonder about about the sincerity of votes so cast.  Are sarcastic votes bad-faith, and if so, may they be stricken?  I only ask the question. Xoloz 07:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If it was your average school teacher yes I would have voted delete and I normally do. IMO associate professors and some professors are borderline at best - they are slightly above your average school teacher. I guess it raises the question of whether people who vote Keep for all schools are voting to make a point rather than voting on merit? JamesBurns 09:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "Inclusionists" do vote to make a point. They think schools are notable.  This is a debatable issue on which they have good-faith convictions.  A sarcastic vote here is potentially different.  If one really believes in a high bar of notability, but votes contrary to that belief for other reasons (eg. I don't like the guy who voted X, so I vote Y, even though I really believe X), one would be voting in bad faith.  I am not saying this has been done, because I don't know anyone's motivations, but there is a prima facie case for wondering whether it might have happened here, so I raise the concern. I do understand your reasons, and was not wishing to question any specific vote.   I only want to point out how counterproductive sarcastic votes might become if they rise in popularity. Xoloz 09:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * We need to be consistant, don't we? If every school is kept, then why aren't the teachers?  They certainly have as much notability as the schools they teach at.  RickK 22:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * That is an argument, and if you really believe that, vote away. I must say, though, I find it an extremely unwise argument.  I think most agree that the US Mint is unquestionably notable; every employee is not.  As below, the city of San Francisco is unquestionably notable, but not every city worker is.  Also, see recent vote on Richard J. Doscher in which many, including yourself, felt an employee of Yuba City was not notable, yet Yuba City is. Xoloz 04:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, entirely disagree with RickK. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just because schools are by definition notable, doesn't mean the teachers are. For one, everyone in a town or city might know about a school (in a medium sized city that is around a quarter of a million people, notable enough for me), but they likely won't be able to name the headmaster or teachers. We have companies on here, but we don't list all of their employees. The same should apply to schools, unless the teacher is noted for something. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs, Me 23:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability of junior prof not at all established. carmeld1 16:28, 15 Jun 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 .