Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Webb


 * 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. -Docg 00:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cody Webb

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

sad case, but it does (EDIT:)NOT warrant an article. It happens all the time. Not enough notability established SYSS Mouse 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree, not very notable. Cogswobble talk 15:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yep, unfortunate for the kid but strictly local news. BTLizard 15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete How is this notable to the world?. Wikipedia could have an article on every teenage delinquent. I am surprised it made a DYK. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you"    Contribs 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Every teenage non-delinquent, you mean. Doops | talk 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete.--Carabinieri 16:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is currently on the main page. I am trying to find an admin with a knowledge of DYK? procedure (I have none...) to remove it. J Milburn 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the moment, or merge into Year 2007 problem. It seems strange to me that the previous users could not find any notability in the article. Even the fact that Wikipedia users are deleting an article that is appearing on the front page has some notability, right? Let's give it a chance to improve and for the events to develop. There are two news articles on it, and this, in my opinion, quite bizarre event deserves some attention, whether to be created as a stand-alone event or as an example in other articles like the Y2K7 one. Aran|heru|nar 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Year 2007 problem is notable, but this event certainly isn't. I don't see how the potential developments, as described in the sources, are going to be notable, either. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — although the Year 2007 problem is the 'hook' making this story fun, it really doesn't seem that central to the story. Even without the hour difference, the police appear (based on the sources) never to have had any case whatsoever gainst Webb. The real issue here seems to have been assumptions of guilty-until-proven-innocent. Doops | talk 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Year 2007 problem. I think those of us on DYK (such as myself) get focused too much on article length and proper sourcing and don't stop to consider the actual noteworthiness of the individual. It certainly didn't occur to me until this nomination, but now that it's been nominated it seems kind of obvious.  howcheng  {chat} 16:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not speedily delete — the overwhelming preponderance of delete votes raises fears in my mind that somebody will close this vote speedily. I'm not prepared to vote either way right now, but I hope this vote stays open the usual length of time. Thanks, Doops | talk 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As the creator of the article, I'm rather surprised at this AFD, as far as I can tell it passes WP:N (subject of multiple third party articles in reliable sources), and WP:V (the article is sourced. SirFozzie 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Think big picture here. In three years or even ten years down the road, this case will not be remembered. Right now it is garnering attention because it is still a relatively new case. If he actually blew up the school, then it would be diferent. However, bomb threats occur frequently and making one to a school, or being wrongly accused does not make one person instantly notable. Also, from what I gathered the only sources in the article are local news media. I do not believe that this article has multiple independent non-trivial sources as needed per WP:BIO, thus it fails that test. -- Cy ru s      An dir on   18:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)\
 * You mean not making one to a school. Doops | talk 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's made The Register, Wired, Slashdot, Fox News (Through the Associated Press) and other tech related sites. Links, ,   SirFozzie 18:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - even if it does scrape through WP:N (although certainly failing WP:BIO), common sense dictates that it be deleted. No-one except this child and his family is ever going to care about this story in even a couple of months time, let alone any further down the line. Yes, he was arrested - but thousands of people are arrested and later released every day. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  18:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Year 2007 problem, and link from mistaken identity. He was a victim of mistaken identity, and WP practice is that people are not notable just because they are victims. But with the increasing reliance on technology, there may one day be enough material for an article on false allegations resulting from technological errors. JonH 18:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe this should be kept because there's a strong 751,000 google results; 2 references on the page and article is written well (although it could be written a bit better).
 * Speedy delete per BLP concerns and particularly the "do no harm" clause. The first Google hit about an otherwise non-notable teenager should not be a Wikipedia article about an accusation against him, particularly when it turned to be a false and possibly malicious one. See generally Requests for comment/Doc glasgow. Newyorkbrad 00:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notable as showing the fallibility of technology, and the excessive willingness of officials to arrest soemone based on very dubious evidence (even had there been no DST issue, that fact that one person called at 3:12 in now way proves he was the same person who called at 3:17). Possibly change the lead so that the exoneratiuon is the fist thing seen to deal with any possible BLP issues (although BLP does say that even very negative statemetns are allowed if factual and wellsourvced, and this one seems to be so.) DES (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you've got some reliable sources actually discussing all of that, it's just a bunch of original research that you're applying to the topic. --Calton | Talk 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that should go into the article, i'm saying those are conclusion that readers could reasoanbly draw, and the facts of the article would support someone doing so. DES (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're justifying the keeping of an article on grounds that can't be put in the article itself? You're saying it should say, in effect, "This topic is important, but we can't tell you why"? Original research is original research, whether explicit or implied. --Calton | Talk 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Minor news story, of no obviously lasting value. If it turns out to have any, re-create it then. --Calton | Talk 14:48, 25 April 2007 (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.