Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. T. William


 * 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 was   Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

C. T. William

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It looks as though someone copied and pasted their essay onto Wikipedia. StaticGull Talk  11:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They did. I moved it to their user space, they moved it back. Delete with extreme prejudice. ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 11:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOT PAPERS, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. — 97198   talk  12:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as copyvio (unless proof has been shown that the two authors are infact the same person). If they are indeed the same person than Delete per the 3 reasons above plus WP:OR. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Nothing resembling an article, and part of said editor's attempts to put himself on Wikipedia (see user' s contributions. --Calton | Talk 14:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see a speedy criterion that this fits, but maybe we can use WP:SNOW instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Question isn't copyviolation a valid speedy criterion? Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's worth considering what speedy deletion is. Boiled down, it is only to be used when an article will clearly not survive AfD and would clearly not be recreated by DRV. We cloak ourselves in a set of criteria designed to show transparency in this and also to guide administrators away from pointless arguments, but the CSD criteria are really just a cloak: we allow administrators to delete outside of the criteria when they know that AfD would SNOW and DRV would fail. However, administrators need the cloak most of the time, as without it the community reserves the right to flay them alive for displaying (retrospectively) poor judgement outside of policy. In this case, I would dearly - oh, but dearly - love to delete this article. But I have no cloak for my actions. There is no speedy criterion "db|bollocks", alas, because the community won't wear such a catch-all licence to delete stuff. The copyvio argument is a good one, but where is the source? If the source cannot be provided, a DRV would overturn the deletion, arguing that the criterion does not apply. An AfD would have to take place anyway, only the article would have survived for two weeks rather than 5 days. And that's where WP:SNOW comes in - with enough people cogently arguing for deletion and no cogent arguments for keeping it, the article can legitimately go quickly. And then we can legitimately rollback the author's many insertions of his own name into other articles. ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 18:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete appears to be entirely Original Research -Hunting dog (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.