Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Scripture-channel

Talk moved from vote page

 * LOL "...harms the reputation of the Wiki site." Like some obscure article that next to nobody (except those few interested in IRC chat rooms) would ever read is going to damage your precious site.  You people really do need to get lives.  Someone writes an article about a little IRC chat room and a dozen self-important bozos pounce all over it so they can feed their egos by pronouncing one ridiculous "rule" after another.  Since you've already deleted 95% of the article, why not go the whole way & just remove it altogether?  Nobody but you people really cares anymore.  It is amusing, though, to watch you obsessing over this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.251.23 (talk • contribs)  01:01, 8 November 2005
 * CONCUR! I agree with whoever posted this comment (above)!!! The entire way this issue has been handled by Zoe, et al., has been incredibly ridiculous & doesn't lend much integrity to this website, imho.  Zoe seems to be on some kind of power trip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.96.120 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 November 2005
 * Thank you both for your comments on this AfD, but we can't accept articles on non-notable topics. Otherwise, anyone could create an article on anything, and Wikipedia would become a free web-hosting service. If we allow one "obscure article that next to nobody would ever read", we would have to allow thousands of "obscure articles that next to nobody would ever read." And that would severely damage the reputation of our website. --TantalumTelluride 04:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Restoring "regulars" section and warning Zoe for vandalism. Endomion 14:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Restoring "regulars" section and warning A Man In Black for vandalism. Endomion 19:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Reporting A Man In Black for vandalism. Deleting 80% of an article that is being considered for deletion before the prescribed five day lag time amounts to a one-man "speedy deletion" action without a consensus for such. Whether the article or portions thereof are encyclopedic or unencyclopedic is precisely the verdict that is being hashed out over those five days.

Original author has given up performing restorations of the article. Endomion 20:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Since when has an article listed for AfD had any special protection against editing? People are making up a guideline which does not exist.  Calling it vandalism is inappropriate, and I won't stand for it.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (sound of stamping feet offstage) ... take a seat then, you might feel better. --81.77.164.237 07:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * By that logic, I can delete 80% of your favorite article, and re-delete it every time you restore it, and it is not vandalism, since under Zoe Rules I don't have to wait 5 days for the community to arbitrate my designation of your article as "vanity". Endomion 02:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * By all means, if you can improve an article by deleting 80% of it, do so! Many articles have a great deal of overspecific trivia, and I'd congratulate replacing it with encyclopedic overview or just removing trivialities. - A Man In Black  (conspire | past ops) 04:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to accept the good faith judgment of other Wikipedians that is not a notable or encyclopedic article and should be removed. But the next time I see a banner that says someone's article is being considered for deletion and should not be "blanked," I will interpret that to mean at least one ASCII character must remain in the original article after it is "edited", because the WikiLove message I've gotten this week is that "AfD status does not preclude editing". Endomion 05:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting that statement; it is intended to prevent new users from completely blanking an article listed on AFD, not prevent judicious editing of articles that happen to be listed on AFD. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Endomion and bad faith reasoning
Endomion, with your recent reactions your (unsigned) vote sounded more like you wanted information retained on the main page that didn't need to be there It's highly recommended to read the information on Articles for Deletion before participating in them. Votes are Keep, Delete, Redirect or Merge. I apologize for mistakenly moving your vote to the discussion page. You could have reverted it and mentioned it to me instead of again assuming bad faith. I've been trying to reach out to you via your talk page but you insist on ignoring the rules and procedures that Just zis Guy, Zoe and myself are trying to educate you on. You've stated on your talk page that you no longer wish to discuss it, but I'm trying very hard to avoid souring you on Wiki. See Guide to deletion for the major points we've been trying to make, especially the first, second and fourth points of general advice. RasputinAXP  T    C  23:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have withdrawn my vote to retain the article and wash my hands of the whole affair. Do with the page as you will. Endomion 01:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

mean people are taking away our web page