Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Rodriguez


 * 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   speedy keep, invalid deletion rationale. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

William Rodriguez

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

After constant edit warring and concensus with most of the editors, except one, I am proposing the William Rodriguez page for deletion. Please AFD.Sharphdmi (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: fixed above. lifebaka++ 03:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain the reason for your opinion on deletion. Is edit warring a reason for deletion? Seems to me that rather, it's a reason for educating, cautioning, and disciplining the warriors, and encouraging them to discuss the edit policies and arrive at consensus. Seems to me that people who refuse to explain their edits, don't seem to mind featuring erroneous information, and who cut solid information for bogus reasons need to change their ways. {[User:Contrivance|Contrivance]] (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable and verifiable. The nominator appears to have taken exception to the Wrong Version&trade; of the page being protected. See: Talk:William_Rodriguez ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 03:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep no valid rationale given for deletion. JuJube (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - article subject is notable. Continue to hash out disagreements on the talk page.  Barkeep   Chat 04:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Contrary to Sharphdmi's assertions above, it is not even remotely true that there was consensus among the editors except for one, with regard to Sharphdmi's numerous edits that are and were clearly non-neutral. There are many editors who do not agree with Sharphdmi's constant and numerous non-neutral POV edits, and it is Sharphdmi himself who has been doing most of the edit warring over the past year or so (while, in my opinion, utilizing various identities).  The article had, in fact, reached a pretty good consensus prior to Sharphdmi's most recent incarnation, and was well on the way to being neutral, informational, and encyclopedic prior to the recent craziness between him and Contrivance.  From reading the talk pages, there appears to be a history of Sharphdmi accusing Contrivance of being a particular person in real life, and a history of Sharphdmi accusing Contrivance of having an agenda in real life against Sharphdmi - without any evidence provided by Sharphdmi - so Sharphdmi is not an unbiased source for purposes of nominating this thread for deletion on the basis that he is getting tired of edit warring with Contrivance.   Further, it is highly suspicious that Sharphdmi wants the Rodriguez article deleted now, after spending so much time and effort trying to bias it in favour of Rodriguez.  It appears that Sharphdmi is motivated by the fact that Rodriguez's many inconsistencies, exaggerations, outlandish conspiracy theories, and unfounded,  unsupported accusations and allegations have been brought to light, and it appears that Sharphdmi hopes now to quash the truth rather than promote it.  So, Sharphdmi's motivation for nominating this article for deletion appear suspect to me.  Thus, I will vote to keep it, unless compelling arguments to the contrary are presented by others, in which case I may change my mind. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}
 * Speedy keep There's plain no reason for deletion. Looks very like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point to me. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As above no rational for deletion and seems notable. You look better naked (talk) 11:10, 29 August 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.