Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enjoyingtea

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 19:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Enjoyingtea
Why does this nonsense still exist after a month? Do people allow established editors to get away with murder but freely bite the newbies? Thats called cowardice, and being too lazy to check. ( ! | ? | * ) 19:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice, yep. ;) --FreelanceWizard 20:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete clear breach of WP:POINT by said 'established editor' --Doc (?) 20:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So why did no one VFD it a month ago?     ( ! | ? | * ) 21:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you VFD it a month ago? You can hardly blame other Wikipedia editors for failing to do things that you yourself won't do. Chuck 18:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would I have wanted to VFD it immediately after creating it?     ( ! | ? | * ) 22:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The same reason you're VFDing it now, presumably. If you didn't want to VFD it a month ago, why should anyone else have? Chuck 22:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Author put it up for vfd. Punkmorten 21:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note, I do not regard it as satisfying the CSD criteria at Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal VI (Requested deletion)     ( ! | ? | * ) 22:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So why did you create this article and then VfD it? Are you trying to Prove some point?  John Barleycorn 21:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I created it on the 8th July. I did not create it so that I could immediately delete it. There is clearly almost a month between creation and VFD.     ( ! | ? | * ) 21:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. I really don't think that people are actively seeking out new articles to decide if they need to be kept or dropped. It'd just be way too much work to keep up with new pages like that, especially given that dropping one, if it can't be speedied, requires the three-step process of putting it up on VfD (and honestly, I've no idea how you'd do that and keep your sanity without a script, macro, or tabbed browser ;) ). I think expecting people to check out all new pages with the current deletion policy is asking a bit much, and things will therefore inevitably fall through the cracks. This seems awfully like trying to illustrate a point disruptively, if you ask me. --FreelanceWizard 23:01, 4 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.