Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Rodney Galloway

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. Sr 13 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Rodney Galloway

Article is a mishmash of information which fails to establish notability per WP:BLP policy. Aarktica 22:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking sufficient claim for notability. The article is a disaster, which is besides the point: why is Orphanbot tagging articles with image deletion warnings rather than the usertalk pages?? —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphanbot didn't tag an article. The creator originally generated the article on his talk page & then moved it. -- JLaTondre 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I can't decide if there are 4 articles in there or none. I'm going with none - Richfife 22:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTE; searching for William Rodney Galloway returns pretty much only Google Groups hits. The article also seems to violate WP:SPAM regarding the "Marquis Who’s Who" directory Lipsticked Pig 23:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only claim to notability is that Galloway is the "first junior enlisted serviceman to become an ALS Leadership Academy Instructor for the USAF". This does not seem to meet our notability requirements, but even more importantly, I can find no reliable, verifiable sources for this individual. -- JLaTondre 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - no real indication of notability, no sources, no article. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing but an in-domain (USAF) notability. Article's defense of Marquis Who's Who smacks of desperation; Marquis does have minimum standards, but they are far below that of Wikipedia notability, and individuals pay to have a complete listing unless they are exceptionally notable. Due to this conflict of interest, they cannot be considered an independent source for notability purposes. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn, unsalvageable mess. Ford MF 08:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, horrible mess, I'm not even going to look into notability. Even if this guy is notable, the article should still be deleted to make way for a better one for now, given that this article has no worth in an encyclopedia. T. Moitie ^[talk] 14:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If "Who's Who"'s are going to be reasons for BLP's, then half of the western world merits one.Piperdown 14:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Articles formatting/quality notwithstanding, notability has not been established. — ERcheck (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ick, what a mess! No notability in the article as it stands, and I couldn't find any decent references. *Cremepuff 222* 19:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, This page was speedily deleted not more than 2 weeks ago. The user requested a copy put on their user space, and then that user moved it directly back to the article mainspace. The user can be found here: User talk:Research2020. T. Moitie ^[talk] 19:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I will not give my time any further to this entry, as well I will reduce charitable giving if you believe that notability in not established. To whom much is given much is expected, to whom little is given little is expected. You established that little was given or expected. The damage of your words are permanent, and they will have an effect on the future.

Please inform your local libraries, colleges, and corporations, inform them that they waste their money investing in purchasing Marquis Who’s Who editions. Paying thousands of dollars for online access or printed editions is a waste of tax dollars and company money that belongs to investors. I'm sure their justification to spend your money has no merit based on your extensive knowledge of what and who is notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.155.137.14 (talk • contribs).

same references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_Who%27s_Who

As I said, I'm a novice wikipedia user and made this entry into a free database of information. This was not done by a public relations writer. I gave first hand knowledge and asked for wikipedia experts to edit and correct this entry so that it meets acceptable standards. All persons commenting have pointed out problems without proposing a solution.

You do not have to explain further, I know who and what all of you are. You are all examples of racist bigots that disrupt unity and work against mutual cooperation when asked for help. In no way was this constructive criticism, it was a blatant attack. I'm sorry that I do not meet those high standards of the trash you support.

Quote from Mr. Galloway The only autograph I'm asked for is my signature on a check. Bleeding liberals beg for money for their causes that were problems that could have been avoided by better lifestyle choices. If I decline, they do what ever they can to drag me down and into their despair and pain in order to silence my conservative opinions. In life we all suffer, but some suffering can be avoided by better choices. People have to want to change before they can be helped. A hungry drug addict made a choice.

Notable or notorious? All of you commenting desire to hurt others not uplift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky

A little more than a year ago, somebody approached Monica Lewinsky in an airport and asked for an autograph. Lewinsky declined to sign, explaining, "I'm kind of known for something that's not so great to be known for." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Research2020 (talk • contribs).

Reply:

"I will reduce charitable giving if you believe that notability in not established." - Is that some sort of threat? I'm not following the logic here.
"Please inform your local libraries, colleges, and corporations, inform them that they waste their money investing in purchasing Marquis Who’s Who editions" - I agree, but I don't control purchasing policy for these institutions. Feel free to go ahead yourself, though. Most of the references in the Galloway article attempt to bolster the status of Marquis. That didn't strike you as odd? This article is kind of interesting (click past the ad page): [1].
"I gave first hand knowledge" - That may have seemed like a good idea, but it wasn't. Wikipedia is a Tertiary source derived from secondary sources. First hand knowledge is also know as original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia.
"asked for wikipedia experts to edit and correct this entry so that it meets acceptable standards" - Sorry, but Wikipedia is so large and the pool of experienced editors is so small, that we require that new editors familiarize themselves with the guidelines for editing themselves first, before contributing. Contributing and then expecting others to fix up any problems later is not the right approach. Also, one of the ways that things are fixed up later is by deleting them completely. Thus this page.
"You are all examples of racist bigots" - No one in this AFD has mentioned race. And even further: Nothing in the article mentions race. Even now I have no idea what race Galloway is. Is he Hispanic? Asian? Black? Native American? White? Mixed? Even if we knew, what basis do you have for this accusation? I can be grouchy and sarcastic all day long. That doesn't make me racist, sexist, classist, or anything except possibly misanthropic.
"Bleeding liberals beg for money for their causes that were problems that could have been avoided by better lifestyle choices. If I decline, they do what ever they can to drag me down and into their despair and pain in order to silence my conservative opinions" - He's a conservative? We're all liberals? (OK, I am, but I'm guessing at least some of the AFD contributors are not). Again, I had no idea what Galloway's politics are and they have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Don't make assumptions about what this is about.
"I'm kind of known for something that's not so great to be known for" - At least she's known. Galloway is not.

Thanks. - Richfife 14:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.