Difference between revisions of "Talk:William Elliott Waterman"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "He's not even a troll but a white knight, then why the article is up for deletion? Also he actin' like an internet tough guy in "Calling out trolls"...it means he probably do...") |
(→Merging with Other Enablers page: new section) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
He's not even a troll but a white knight, then why the article | He's not even a troll but a white knight, then why is the article up for deletion? | ||
Also he actin' like an internet tough guy in "Calling out trolls"...it means he probably doesn't give a fuck about this article. | Also he actin' like an internet tough guy in "Calling out trolls"...it means he probably doesn't give a fuck about this article. Or he does? Whatevar, please, don't baleet it. --[[User:Gunter|Gunter]] ([[User talk:Gunter|talk]]) 17:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
* I've had requests that the article was shitty and debatedly that the page was made by William himself, so I'm gonna leave it there and see whether should I remove the page or remove the deletion template in the future. [[User:Alan Pardew|Alan Pardew]] ([[User talk:Alan Pardew|talk]]) 04:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
** By the word shitty do you mean "poorly written"? If so that's hardly an argument for deleting an article. I don't think that the current version of our article on Bob is poorly written, but if it were nobody would argue based on it that the article should be deleted. We should delete articles based on whether or not their subject is notable enough. I definitely think that Waterman is notable enough to warrant a mention on the CWCki considering his friendship with Chris, but I'm not sure if he is worthy of having his own article. I've had an idea for a new article, ''List of Minor Figures in Chris's life''. The article will contain info about people who are relevant to Chris's life in some kind of way (acquaintances and so on) who aren't notable enough to have their own articles. I think that's a place in which Waterman can fit. - [[User:NegaCWC|NegaCWC]] ([[User talk:NegaCWC|talk]]) 16:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
**I leave for a while and people accuse me of being William Elliott Waterman. I think that's hilarious. Delete the article if you want and really feel he's unworthy. I wrote it at a time when it looked like William would be a more important figure. But it's idiotic to accuse me of things you can't possibly prove as a rationale. [[User:Duncans Construction|Duncans Construction]] ([[User talk:Duncans Construction|talk]]) 21:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
***I re-read the article and I think there's not worth deleting it. Removed the deletion template. [[User:Alan Pardew|Alan Pardew]] ([[User talk:Alan Pardew|talk]]) 10:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
****Is anyone going to add Chris' Facebook post about William on November 25, 2015? I have the screenshot here: [http://puu.sh/lAVgr/91418dbafb.png] [[User:Melkor|Melkor]] ([[User talk:Melkor|talk]]) 21:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Merging with Other Enablers page == | |||
By the discussion in [[CWCki:General#Standards for inclusion]], Waterman seems to fit the criteria for moving to [[Other enablers]], perhaps under the Financial section, as his interactions with Chris did not produce much content. Any objections to merging this page? [[User:Hurtful Truth Level|Hurtful Truth Level]] ([[User talk:Hurtful Truth Level|talk]]) 01:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:29, 5 May 2021
He's not even a troll but a white knight, then why is the article up for deletion?
Also he actin' like an internet tough guy in "Calling out trolls"...it means he probably doesn't give a fuck about this article. Or he does? Whatevar, please, don't baleet it. --Gunter (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've had requests that the article was shitty and debatedly that the page was made by William himself, so I'm gonna leave it there and see whether should I remove the page or remove the deletion template in the future. Alan Pardew (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- By the word shitty do you mean "poorly written"? If so that's hardly an argument for deleting an article. I don't think that the current version of our article on Bob is poorly written, but if it were nobody would argue based on it that the article should be deleted. We should delete articles based on whether or not their subject is notable enough. I definitely think that Waterman is notable enough to warrant a mention on the CWCki considering his friendship with Chris, but I'm not sure if he is worthy of having his own article. I've had an idea for a new article, List of Minor Figures in Chris's life. The article will contain info about people who are relevant to Chris's life in some kind of way (acquaintances and so on) who aren't notable enough to have their own articles. I think that's a place in which Waterman can fit. - NegaCWC (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I leave for a while and people accuse me of being William Elliott Waterman. I think that's hilarious. Delete the article if you want and really feel he's unworthy. I wrote it at a time when it looked like William would be a more important figure. But it's idiotic to accuse me of things you can't possibly prove as a rationale. Duncans Construction (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I re-read the article and I think there's not worth deleting it. Removed the deletion template. Alan Pardew (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
![[1]](http://puu.sh/lAVgr/91418dbafb.png){kind=link}
Merging with Other Enablers page
By the discussion in CWCki:General#Standards for inclusion, Waterman seems to fit the criteria for moving to Other enablers, perhaps under the Financial section, as his interactions with Chris did not produce much content. Any objections to merging this page? Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)