Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scripture-channel

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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 01:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scripture-channel

Page covers a not-notable IRC channel and has no encyclopedic value. Leithp (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -Locke Cole 21:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. and as per precedent. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 22:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and precident -jackson1905November 5, 2005
• Delete. It is a non-notable IRC channel. Carioca 22:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I was going to nominate this myself. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Individual IRC channels of any network are not notable.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 05:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Besides, Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service. --TantalumTelluride 21:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, extreme vanity. I just deleted an enormous list of channel participants. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, really, would you say it was a "notably" enormous list? Endomion 04:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really. I've seen longer vanity lists in other articles that went on to be deleted. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Someone deleted my comment this place is a CONSPIRACY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.121.173 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 10 November 2005

• • • Your comment is not deleted; RasputinAXP moved it to the project talk page where it belongs. Don't be surprised if this one is moved there also. Rest assured that there is no conspiracy to pick on you. --TantalumTelluride 04:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete* for above reasons. --Alicejenny 13:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this entry is totally against the purpose and spirit of Wikipedia and harms the reputation of the Wiki site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.82.212 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 November 2005
• Comment I have moved the discussion from this page to where it belongs, on the talk subpage for this AfD. Please continue your arguements there, sockpuppets and all.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• My vote to retain this article was deleted. I am now thoroughly sick of all Wikipedians. Endomion 20:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think you might have accidentally voted on the discussion page. --TantalumTelluride 21:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• If that was true, then a simple revert of this page would not result in my vote magically reappearing. Endomion 21:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest you employ Hanlon's Razor. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 22:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, because I didn't understand what she was voting I moved it to the discussion page; I'll restore it now, see the discussion page for an explanation.  RasputinAXP  T C 23:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Desire leads to suffering. I withdraw my vote to retain the article. Endomion 01:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 22:24, 10 November 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.