Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth V. Lodal

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth V. Lodal

non notability Melaen 22:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom., also arguably copyvio (says not in Discussion, but the source does not as far as I can see say public domain, maybe I'm missing something) - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE how is a the principal of the number one high school in america not notable? would it really kill wikipedia to have this information available? --69.255.6.163
• Delete per nomination. No assertation of notability, and even if I could work out from the article which school 69.255.6.163 was referring to, could someone tell me how I could work out which of the untold thousands of American high schools is the 'number one'?

Also, considering the article's first incarnation could be taken as an attack page, and the article has been an on-and-off edit war for the past few days, leads me to question whether this copy-paste bio (even if it is not copywright) belongs here. No offense intended, but I have to side with the deleters. Saberwyn 07:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio. TheMadBaron 09:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not copyvio IMO, but really a dumb article that wouldn't do the subject justice anyway 68.100.68.23 01:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia really going to be that much worse if this article stays? Isn't the point of the project to conveniently make information available for free? Why would this article be such a big problem? I would appreciate an answer, thanks! --69.255.6.163

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.