Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John DeWitt (postmaster) and Hillrey Adams


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

John DeWitt (postmaster) and Hillrey Adams
Delete per WP:BIO. Non-notable local office holder. Gamaliel 15:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  Doesn't pass WP:BIO M  a  rtinp23  15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this is an obvious response to a comment I made on the Ted Kennedy talk page. By the way Gamaliel just to let you know I haven't even read what your response was to my comment. I don't plan to either because I could care less. Now you can go after some more of my articles for all I care! Cheers! Dwain 16:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot to mention, postmasters are federally appointed in the United States and are not local office holders. Sorry. Dwain 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I noticed this article last night and didn't put it up for afd then because I was afraid that you'd have precisely this reaction. Then this morning I thought that my first instinct was silly and that I was assuming bad faith. After all, no one would have be immature enough to think that putting up an article on some obscure non-notable office holder for deletion was a retaliation for some innocuous talk page comments that weren't even directed at me.  Sorry to see that you've proven my first negative instinct correct.  Gamaliel 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Possible sockpuppet/imposter alert; is User:Pitchka actually User:Dwain, in which case he should choose one account to use and the other should be blocked, or is Pitchka just impersonating Dwain? (check "Dwain's" signature above) Postdlf 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * HELLO REALITY ALERT HERE!!! What is with you guys? You have waaay too much time on your hands pal. I'm sure like Gamaliel it was just a coincidence that you went to the User:Dwain talk page right? But nothing is up no sockpuppet use is going on. User:Pitchka links to User:Dwain page. Duh! This was done a long time ago when people were saying that Pitchka was a bad word in some language or another. There was nothing wrong with having two accounts for editing as long as the one was identified and you didn't try defrauding the system by voting multiple times. So before you get all George Bush stole the election on us just cool out and see reason. I still use Pitchka because I created many articles and wanted to be credited for those creations. Has the "rule" suddeny changed or something, or is this just for me again? Dwain 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF... and you all need to WP:COOL it. AfD isn't the place for mudslinging and personal disputes.--Isotope23 17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been very civil. Dwain 17:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is your opinion, all I will say is that you have a novel concept of what constitutes civil discourse.--Isotope23 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lofty speech. You guys are amazing. (Amazing in a good way mind you, I get a nice warm tingly feeling everytime I turn around) Just from the people on this page I have been accused of vandalism, called immature, threatened, accused of sockpuppetry, trolled, and attacked both personally and by reverting my edits. What kind of behavior is this? My comments are nothing compared with the behavior of several of the people who have voted for this article. In fact, I really don't care that the article is deleted. Since when is Duh a personal attack or not speaking civily? You don't like the way I think or write or talk too bad and I mean that with the greatest civility! Dwain 17:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You get what you give. You don't want a response like that, don't act like you have been acting. Gamaliel 17:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've responded on User Talk:Dwain and please everyone take it to the Talk page... this adds nothing of value to the AfD discussion.--Isotope23 18:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: db-bio. --Lambiam Talk 16:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as nn. It's simply not a notable position.  No one studies local postmasters so there would be no way to expand this.  Postdlf 16:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Fails WP:V, WP:OR, WP:BIO -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 17:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:V and, to a more debatable extent, WP:BIO. I'm not sure whether he qualifies as a politician (aren't political figures in non-democratic countries still politicians to some extent?) but at any rate I don't find any significant independent sources. Kafziel 19:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've linked Hillrey Adams to this AfD, will the closing admin please include it? Yank  sox  21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete that one too; same reason. Postdlf 21:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Neither subject is notable per WP:BIO.  Additionally, if I'm correct, I think I read somewhere that there are thousands of post masters in the US.  Srose   (talk)  21:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Found confirmation. See the article on postmasters - one per every post office, of which there are tens, but more likely hundreds of thousands in the US.  Srose   (talk)  21:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * delete both per WP:not a cat in hell's chance. Never would have imagined someone would fight so bitterly to keep two such obviously non-notable entries. The subjects are not the Postmaster General. By extention of Dwain's logic, all federally appointed people in any position would warrant inclusion, which would be patent nonsense, as WP:NOT a directory. Ohconfucius 03:36, 18 August 2006 (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.