Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faye Gabriel

Add links
Source: 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 was delete, disregarding anon "votes". {{

at 06:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Faye Gabriel

Seems like a good and dedicated teacher, but one article in a local paper doesn't make her notable. NawlinWiki 02:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I was just getting ready to tag this for AfD, when NawlinWiki beat me to it. I see nothing notable here, and the article is a mess with little encyclopaedic content. This was tagged as db-bio a number of times, and the tags were just removed. Delete it. ---Charles 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Can we please be cuteous to each other, keep the language to a PG level at least, and just vote, add a justification, and move on, foul comments might sway people in certain directions. Gonzo883 03:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Merge with
    Talk | Websites)  02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Pretty sure im not a single use account, just becuase im new and happen to know Faye Gabriel doesn't mean I'm corrupting the wiki system.
  • DeleteOrigionally wanted to keep, but if its causing that much discontent then I exempt myself from this conversation.
Origonal vote: Add a staff section on foothills page per Aqu01rius says WalterWalrus3 02:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note The above user created the article in question. -- Kicking222 03:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Montco 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge per above. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability.
    es2221 02:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge If so many people have already voted, then i guess we have to consider a merge 24.4.26.112 02:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While the article may not be notable enough for its own page, it seems reasonable to include it as part of Foothill's article. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmontez (talk • contribs)
  • Superstrong speedy delete A "staff" section? Are you (pardon my French) f***ing kidding me? We should start listing every teacher at every school? Why not list every doctor at a hospital? I worked at a zoo with a WP article; why don't I throw my name into it? That's completely ludicrous. Gabriel seems like an excellent person and a strong supporter of teenagers; however, not just does she fail
    WP:BIO, but there is not a single assertion of notability in the article. -- Kicking222 03:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Superstrong speedy delete doesnt make your vote count more,
personal attack removed WalterWalrus3 04:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks; for example, calling someone such a name is in very poor taste. -- Kicking222 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the time I noticed my mistake, you replied. I really meant Notable staff instead of staff. Obviously your not notable enough to be mentioned in your Zoo article. But that's not the case for Faye Gabriel. Oh, and please remain cool, and refrain from using profanity. AQu01rius (
Talk | Websites)  03:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm completely cool. I (honestly) apologize if you were offended, but
Wikipedia is not censored. -- Kicking222 03:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Wow calm down, anyway the oldest teacher, and longest consecutive years teaching at a PUSD school seems like a notable merge to Foothill's article WalterWalrus3 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable and merge would create a dangerous precedent. (But the idea of dancing 25 minuets on Wednesday seems interesting.) -- RHaworth 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I think you didn't really read the article carefully because if you did, you would notice that it's a typo :) AQu01rius (
Talk | Websites)  03:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I think RHaworth's vote should not be counted, nowhere in the entire artilce does it say anyhing about dancing on wednesday's, he has no idea what hes voting for.WalterWalrus3 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, WalterWalrus originally did not sign his comment and stated that he had not voted, which was a lie, as he had already "voted" (and, in fact, created the article). Second, AfD is not a vote- the person who closes the debate will consider (and, if necessary, give weight to) all comments. Third, the above user was very obviously referring to the fact that "minute" is misspelled "minuet" multiple times in the article; perhaps its original creator, who claims to not have voted, should copyedit it. -- Kicking222 03:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont insinuate who I am
personal attack removed. I signed my merge about seven seconds (a rough estimation) after i made the merge comment. I have no idea who any of these single accounts are, theres one from a seperate ip adress, so that couldnt possibly be a sock puppet. I never claimed that i "voted" before, though i didnt, and lastly, would appreciate if you would stop picking out any spelling errors, as that isnt a proper reason to delete an article. WalterWalrus3 04:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
And, dear god, RHaworth was being sarcastic! -- Kicking222 03:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you know that I wasn't being sarcastic :)? Anyway, it's off-topic. AQu01rius (
Talk | Websites)  04:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Can I delete the thing next to my name that says im a sock puppet? its really discearning Gonzo883 03:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not saying that you're a sockpuppet; I certainly don't believe that Gonzo883 is the alias of another user trying to stack votes. However, the {{
spa}} tag applies, and only claims exactly what it says. The tag notes that you have few contributions to any articles besides this one, which is true. Your comments are not necessarily less valid than anyone else's, but it should be known that you have contributed to this article and few others. -- Kicking222 03:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
So it serves little purpose other than making it known that im new, which in some people's minds may make prejudice against a newbie? It seems to me like your singling me out Gonzo883 04:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How am I singling you out when I placed the same tag next to two other users' comments? -- Kicking222 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with RHaworth that merge is a dangerous precedent here. Also, sockpuppet operators should note that their actions are not going to convince anyone who reads the discussion. --N Shar 03:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sockpuppetry is indeed a concern. Please do not get me wrong however, I simply think that Mrs. Gabriel's dedication should be worth a mention in her school article. AQu01rius (
Talk | Websites)  04:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
My thought was that the rationale for voting merge in a deletion debate was to make sure that a worthwhile topic does not drop of the map with the removal of the article (i.e., someone would merge the content before it was deleted). Here, I kind of think that the article should be deleted first, while the debate on inclusion is taken to the page on the school. Perhaps that's not a good way to do things, though -- I'm not very experienced here. --N Shar 04:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I also agree with RHaworth that a merger is a very bad idea, and sets a dangerous precedent. ---Charles 03:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Theoldanarchist, ur the one who kept reverting changes i made to my own userpage. Anyway, im pretty sure theres enough people voting merge to make a little tidbit on the Foothill page, so im gonna do that and if you want to debate it, i suggest you go to the Foothill High School (Pleasanton, California) page. WalterWalrus3 04:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is false. According to the history, Theoldanarchist has never edited User:WalterWalrus3. --N Shar 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow look at inspector gadget over here, as if saying that has any relevence to this discussion. Anyway, i dont know what happend via history but definatly remember previously seeing Theoldanarchist next to a revert, maybe it was the talk page. WalterWalrus3 04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I reverted your talk page after you deleted two warnings you received about vandalism. As anyone can see who looks at your talk page, those were not the last warnings you received either. I tend to feel that the deletion of said warnings gives newer visitors to your talk page the impression that you have not received said warnings in the past, and is intended to be deceptive. But, as I say, that is only my opinion. ---Charles 04:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you want my personal opinion, Gonzo and all the others are sock puppets, but thats just my opinon, im too tired and actually have a life, so im going to leave this article is most likely to be deleted so im gonna surrender and apologize for wasting everybodys time based on an overwhelming discontent.

I wish i knew how to do that cross out effect, feel free to do so if you want. WalterWalrus3 04:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment <s> at the begining of what you want to cross out and</s> at the end.--Isotope23 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a good teacher is valuable to society but usually not enough to warrant an encyclopedia article per
    WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 04:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete a good teacher is worth his/her weight in gold but this fails

WP:BIO.--Lord of Illusions 06:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom and
    WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete I'm sure she's a great teacher, but Wikipedia is not a directory of great teachers.--MonkBirdDuke 08:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-noteable. not encyclopaedic SMC 09:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Faye is clearly a good, resourceful and dedicated teacher who does her job well, like millions of others, myself included. There is nothing innovative about the methods she uses and nothing in either the Wiki article or the linked local newspaper article to suggest that she is notable enough to warrant a place in an encyclopaedia. Emeraude 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Khukri (talk . contribs) 14:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ordinarily, I'd say Delete on a local teacher article, however in this case things seem to be best served by Merge and keep as redirect for
    GFDL purposes. She's pretty clearly (and verifiably!) notable within the school context, so mention her there. Keep it a short section to avoid undue weight, and let consensus there determine if this is an inappropriate inclusion in the school article. Oh, and everybody knock off the personalizing. -- nae'blis 15:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and keep as redirect as per Nae'blis. EVula 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no merge here. Though I am sure that Ms. Gabriel is a credit to her profession, she in no way meets
    WP:BIO compliant teachers in their school articles. If she doesn't meet the guidelines to support a standalone article I don't see any reason to package her into another article.--Isotope23 19:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Eh? Lots of articles have biographical snippets on people who don't meet the standards of WP:BIO. It's a pretty common way of mentioning people who are notable only in a single context. -- nae'blis 19:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment and I think it is generally a bad practice unless the person has some important role in the article topic (company CEO, etc) and the information in someway enhances the article on said topic. I don't think an individual teacher, no matter how well liked, really qualifies.--Isotope23 20:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Being a long-time teacher at an American school isn't a sign of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of popular US teachers. --Charlene.fic 20:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any of my teachers listed in Wikipedia... and I am not about to go creating any articles. Craighennessey 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One argument that's useful in AfD discussions is the "I could make five hundred articles like this one easily." Maybe it's more like five million. There are a lot of teachers in the world who have somewhat creative techniques and have had a story done about them in the local paper. So what? Who cares? Good grief! 129.98.197.86 02:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. No evidence of meeting
    masterka 09:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong delete Non notable, though admirable. I too would have tagged this for speedy. --Dweller 09:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. ✔ She's a unique teacher. Look at these teaching techniques. This article is fucking increadible. (And it's well-fucking-written, too.)--HQCentral 09:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, she is not a unique teacher. Gifted, talented, inspired - almost certainly, but not unique. And the entry is not well-written unfortunately. It is/was full of typos and spelling errors, which have been and can be corrected. However, it would still be the sort of human interest article that is suitable for a local newspaper, not an encyclopaedia.Emeraude 13:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides, being "fucking increadible" (sic) and "well-fucking-written" wasn't speedy keep criteria last time I checked.--Isotope23 14:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's called a joke, troll. The fact that you value guidelines for some free encyclopedia more than reason shows me that you have a long way to go in life. The entry is educational and useful; therefore it should stay. By the way, I think what you meant to type above was "[sic]." (Since we're being pedantic now.)--HQCentral 05:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, fails
    WP:BIO. *drew 11:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete without merge per
    WP:BIO. If she were "notable staff" (whch she is not), she would by definition have a wiki article by rights. Ohconfucius 06:15, 23 October 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faye_Gabriel&oldid=1137845302"