Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The PLAGUE


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The PLAGUE
An article on an apparently non-notable student publication which consists entirely of what looks like original research. Gamaliel 09:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - not original research though. Check the links in the article.  But a school newspaper doesn't belong here. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would have thought about this one a little harder if it was written more formally. --Aucaman 09:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom dr.alf 10:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and a plague on all thier houses. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm the guy who created it, and a lot of the issues that Gamaliel had with it had been fixed. We never had time to really get it together because as you can see in our history he or she deleted almost the entire article while it was being worked on. We are not an insignificant publication, but rather one of the largest Student Magazines in the Country (aside from journals such as the Harvard Lampoon - which is independantly funded) and we publish real, topical information.JesseRafe 05:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history it appears I inadvertantly added the AfD notice to an older version of the article, which eliminated some of your changes. I apologize for that mistake, but that's hardly deleting the entire article, and anything that was removed can be easily retrieved from the history. Gamaliel 05:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - This violates none of the cardinal rules: It is not in any way biased, it is wholly verifiable, it doesn't include anything that could be called original research, and it violates no copyrights. It has no inaccurate information. I think it's a waste of everybody's time to have even marked it. Benjamin Harrison 00:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This is the user's first edit. Enochlau 09:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If the content isn't kept, then it can easily be replaced with a redirect to Black Death. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:47, 12 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.