Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jiminezwaldorf/CoH


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete —  xaosflux  Talk  18:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jiminezwaldorf/CoH
This article was deleted Articles for deletion/Church of Humanity and so shouldn't be kept in user space per disallowed use #3. ScienceApologist 18:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not edited for a month, still no reliable sources (the deletion was because of a lack of them). User can put it in a text file until sources are found. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article was userfied following the AfD discussion so that User:Jiminezwaldorf could improve it so that it would meet the notability requirements. Judging from the CSD A7 deletion (at Church of humanity), he failed to get it up to snuff. No apparent attempts to improve the userfied version since then. Caknuck 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No serious attempt to add sources since the article was userfied. Several of the provided links don't mention the CoH at all (hmmm....) and the rest are blogs/SPS. Raymond Arritt 04:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete AfD decision was unanimous except for dissenting vote by Jiminezwaldorf. No edits in 5 weeks despite claim in dissent that 3rd party sources could be produced. / edg ☺ ★ 05:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete still not even a hint of why this organisation may be notable. – ornis  ⚙  05:36, 3 October 2007 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.