Talk:William Elliott Waterman

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)