Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Noels Hall

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. Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St._Noels_Hall

not encyclopedic -Andrew 18:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. -Andrew 19:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 18:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - does not assert importance or significance (if only A7 could be expanded for animals objects and places) JoJan 19:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• please do not delete. I work here, and it is all true, none is made up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.233.87 (talk • contribs)
• xxxx verifiable material. Trollderella 20:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment/Abstain. Just because it's real doesn't mean it deserves an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Saberwyn 21:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not all verifiable material is encyclopedic. This article doesn't assert notability and reads more like and advertisement pamphlet than anything else. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

YOU ARE ALL RETARTED AND DONT HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR, SCREW YOU ALL! TROLLDERELLA YOU ARE AWESOME! EVERYONE ELSE CAN KISS MY ASS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.228.3 (talk • contribs)

• Actually, none of this is verifiable. I'll kiss your ass too. Delete. Trollderella 22:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• There are thousands of articles on here that do not "assert importance or significance" yet they remain untouched. Who determines what is "important" anyway? This is very important to many people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.12.123 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, nn, advertising. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Advertising? Are you high? Does this mean McDonald's is not allowed to have an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.12.55 (talk • contribs)
• you moderators are a bunch of homos. Get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.105.80.202 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. feydey 22:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I live nearby and have been a few times. They throw great brunches, but this is not a proper Wikipedia article. Jacqui ^{★ 00:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete as 1) advertising abuse of wikipedia 2) non-encyclopedia 3) non-notable 4) offensive homophobic insults by article authors Bwithh 03:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. vanity, non notable,unenecylopedia. note personal attacks on voters by authors..Dakota
• you are an offensive homophobe. Advertising?? how is it advertising? Nowhere does it say, come here now, or even give any contact #'s or anything. You are douchebags. Pull out the buttplugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.105.80.202 (talk • contribs)
• Anal sex is amazing. Bwithh 06:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC) - This comment was left first unsigned, and then falsely attributed to my signature - this was done by Users 209.81.165.130 and 209.81.165.130 Bwithh 03:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC) entire comment removed by 209.81.166.99, restored by Saberwyn 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• You guys aren't being very helpful. Instead of trying to tear this thing down like the Berlin Wall, why don't you give some advice to the authors so they know what to change? Help them to rebuild it. Like... the... um... Great Wall of China? RGH

Because the article is a pure advert and , also because the authors and their homophobic supporters lack common civility. Bwithh 03:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• I couldn't find which example of homophobia you were talking about... You're still being vague... Sorry... RGH

I was referring to the early comment "you moderators are a bunch of homos. Get a life. (preceding unsigned comment by 143.105.80.202 (talk • contribs) )", and then later comments in the same vein. I assumed that this was by the article authors, but was not referring to the article itself. I could have been clearer. Bwithh 12:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• I still don't see how it's an advertisment... Maybe a specific example would be more helpful. Or you could all sit around feeling all proud and mighty that you shot down an admittedly crappy article. I hope you all come down with a severe case of rectal prolapse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.81.166.99 (talk • contribs)
• Yeah! I second that. And I hope you can't just push it back in, either!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.221.254.91 (talk • contribs) , who is also responsible for all comments signed user:RGH in this debate. Saberwyn 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Fails the proposed inclusion guides for WP:CORP. As an aside, someone who knows about the place may have helped with the article's improvement, if the first comment here by the article's contributors hadn't been "YOU ARE ALL RETARTED AND DONT HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR, SCREW YOU ALL!". Saberwyn 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• In all seriousness, you really don't have a sense of humor. This was only put up for fun and to see if it would last. It was obvious from the beginning that it wasn't going anywhere. I don't even know why it's still up. In other news, Saberwyn clearly indicated that it shows potential to be a 'real' article, which goes against all the other's proclamations that it is a cut and dry removal piece. Clearly the standards need to be worked on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.81.166.99 (talk • contribs)
  • May. The key word is may. I originally did not believe personally that there was potential in this article. Mind you, my judgement is hampered in this case because I live on a different continent. I was only stating the possibility that someone who knew the place better that I did (and wasn't an original contributor to the article) could possibly have looked at the piece and given the rest of us informed advice. Jacqui has given us that informed decision, and I see no evidence here to counter her claims.

If there was any desire by the original contributors to make this into a decent article (which there apparently wasn't according to the comment above) that effort has been completely blown out of the water by the behaviour of the article's contributors and their allies during this AfD. Mind you, some of the accusations by the regualar users are almost as bad.

I've made my decision. I'm no longer abstaining, now voting for delete as a serious failure of WP:CORP, and also as a breach of the spirit of the Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point policy, as attested to above by anon user 209.81.166.99. Saberwyn 10:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, Well, Well. Looks like we gots ourselves a bunch of retarted moderators here. Seen um before I have. Yup, they go around getting a sick high off deleting enjoyable articles. Yeah, them some nasty buggers. They pretend to be high n' mighty while striking down the weak and unedumicated. Bastards. Nope, you just can't get rid of them. They hang around like flies on dead bodies. We can only pray that someday, maybe, they will understand harmless humor, and find something better to do with their time. But for now, we all must put up with their stank.
• Comment Very cute...
• Does anyone know anything about calculus? I'm having a hard time with one of my homework problems and I was hoping someone could help me out. The problem reads: We are planning to put a space shuttle in gepsynchronous orbit at a distance above the earth`s equator of 22, 300 miles. It`s objective is a point in space 240,000 miles from the earth`s center. We know that the best time to leave earth`s orbit is a little more than 3/4 of an orbit past the point,C, which is the closest point in the shuttle`s orbit to the object, M, However, we need a bit more accuracy that that. A) How long from the time when it is closest to the objective, M, should it fire its rockets so as to be on a direct course toward the objective? B) How fast will the shuttle be traveling toward the objective just before firing the rockets to leave earth orbit. The picture given has earth inside of this larger circle. The point C is directly below E on the circle and the point S, is directle to the left and down, like at 280 degrees on the circle. I know that: you have to use the radius of the earth, divide by 24 to get how fast the space shuttle travels in one hour, and that the circle is the orbit of the shuttle. I would really appreciate your help. Thanks for taking time out to help.

-Josh

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.