Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma cale


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 12:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Emma cale
Looks like an elaborate attempt to sneak in a nn. Possibly proddable, but I thought i'd bring it here just to be on the safe side. Grutness...wha?  22:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello this is not an article for nameless nobody as the acronym nn possibly indicates.

User and Eston swimming club coach - Dave Saville ; This is a very talented young woman and i intend to add an article on Mr. Wilkinson also. If you would like to research either person extensively, i think you would withdraw your offensive statements and remove this article from the deletion process please. Thank you.

Please do not penalize talent, Francis (the woman who entered the article) intends to expand the source and cite references, this source is of venerable provenance, unlike many of the other articles listed for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.0.110 (talk • contribs)


 * nn stands for "non-notable", i.e., failing to specify any way in which the subject reaches WP's notability guidelines. If it is offensive to you that i have stated this, then I apologise, but it is a fact that as the article stands notability has not been established. I find it interesting that you mention "Francis (the woman who entered the article)", given that the article was created by User: Tony Montanna, who has yet to create a user page. As such, I suspect that you may know more about this article's creation than you are letting on. As it says in the introduction to AfD, Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Grutness...wha?  23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom as non-notable person. Grutness, note that "notability" has a specific meaning for Wikipedia topics. Note also that getting the article deleted now as it stands doesn't mean you can't come back later and write a new article on this person (provided the article satisfies the usual WP standards). DMacks 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DMacks, I know that - I've been around here long enough to know the noability guidelines pretty well. It may well be that User:81.129.0.110 doesn't know them, though. Grutness...wha?  05:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. - Shaundakulbara 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for now but Wikipedia will welcome an article on Emma Cale when she competes in the Olympics. Fg2 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as nn person. Montco 06:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject fails WP:BIO at this time. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete article fails WP:Verifiability and WP:Bio. Scottmsg 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete "Allegations of lack of commitment" hardly make her noteworthy. Any particular achievements would. User:Dimadick

Is fame the measure of notability? Your responses are naive and dogmatic - why should i want to converse with people who display flagrant intellectual incontinence, you are limited by a formulaic paradigm. Make wikipedia revolutionary, progressive and stop this stagnant conservative stance. please relax your regulations, as it will end up with the death of this site eventually more radical, daring, informative and creative sites will surpass this regimented system. Or am i being too quixotic for this debate? A MASSIVE - DO NOT DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.0.110 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment I just reverted the last edit by 81.129.0.110 for changing the votes of myself and Montco from delete to do not delete. Scottmsg 15:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Im fed up you people are prats, utter prats, the way you debate and are so rigid just spoils wikipedia. please just relax and give this article a shot, it will not blight your lifes and why not? its not causing any harm and it is a postive contribution. I would understand if it was vandalism or cluttering the site. please please let it be, sorry for editing the messages, I am just very very frustrated.


 * 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.