Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Wells

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:19] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] Scott Wells

Mere candidates for state office are not notable enough for inclusion as anyone with a few hundred dollars may become a candidate. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So only people with more than a few hundred dollars are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? How fascist of you. --Cwithers 19:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify since you are apparently out to vilify me. The only requirements for running as a candidate are residency and some cash. I obviously don't feel that either of those warrant inclusion. Why don't you bother reading what I actually wrote instead of making random accusations. I take your insinuation of fascism as an unwarranted ad hominem attack based on willful ignorance of what I have written. You are getting dangerously close to Godwin's Law for no reason. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 20:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Ruby 21:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also, commenters on AfD must learn to read. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will read what you wrote instead of making random accusations. You said that "mere" candidates for state office are not notable enough for inclusion as "anyone with a few hundred dollars may be become a candidate." How did I misconstrue that? You never once mentioned residency or any other requirement in your first posting. You simply said that anyone with a little bit of cash can run for office. By the way, do you consider yourself so important that I would just be out to vilify you? I have no idea who you are, are have absolutely no desire to find out. But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and tell yourself that I'm trying to stand up to your awesome power, and that I'm failing miserably because you have marked this article for deletion. I'll go along with it.--69.128.234.209 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So what makes something worth keeping on a free site that has no real merit to the actual opinion of a person. You may think it does not merit mention but who says I care what you have to say, and why should your pages be here either then we can save some cyberspace and remove wikpedia entirely. Just on your pronciple thought of what has merit and what does not.

I am not out to get you and have no feelings about you positive or negative. Actually, I guess I am slightly leaning towards the dislike side as you called me a fascist. I don't claim to have awesome power. In fact, I have less power than others who have commented on this AFD as I am not a Wikipedia:Administrator. How did you misconstrue what I said? You implied that I had said that moneyed individuals were notable. I had in fact said the opposite. Our inclusion standards for biographies can be found at WP:BIO. If you feel that this article warrants inclusion given those guidelines, please say so. I am sorry that you took my nomination of this article as a personal affront; it was by no means meant to be. I am a new pages patroller and try to adhere to our policies regarding deletion and notability to the best of my ability. There is precedent that running for office is not in and of itself notable enough for inclusion. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 20:28, 24 February 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.