Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storkyrkan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was strong and speedy keep. Uppland 7 July 2005 13:13 (UTC) (being bold).
[edit] Storkyrkan
not notable church 203.98.57.97 3 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)
- Strong keep 16,400 Google hits? Oldest church in Stockholm? Sounds notable enough to me. Article just needs expansion. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)
- Strong keep Please refrain from refering obviously notable places and quality articles for deletion.--File Éireann 3 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)
- Strong keep as per Alex12 3 - Oldest church in Stockholm makes it perfectly notable! UkPaolo
- Speedy keep. Sanction User:203.98.57.97 for bad-faith VFD nominations intended to WP:POINT. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)
- I agree with sanctioning user 203.98.57.97 for above reasons. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
- I removed the VfD tag, as adding it was nothing but a clear case of vandalism. Please close this vote now before more people waste their time here. Uppland 3 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)
-
- comment it might be considered bad form to remove the VfD before letting the votes finish... I appreciate that it doesn't deserve deletion (my vote above reflects that), but in that case it will clearly get a Keep vote overall. There's no evidence the VfD was added maliciously as it stands... why not just let the vote run its course? UkPaolo 3 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)
- It is one thing to defend the existence of an article on something obviously notable in the case of a nomination by an established user who just hadn't understood the significance of the topic (possibly because the article was badly written, which is often the case). But this nomination is vandalism by an anonymous user. This particular vandal apparently discovered that if he adds some garbage to a page, he will be reverted in a couple of minutes, but by adding a VfD tag and going though the trouble of setting up a vote, he can keep dozens of wikipedians occupied for days voting and debating his little prank. I see no reason why we should play according to those rules. Uppland 3 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
- fair point. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
- Another possibility is that this is some established user who makes these silly nominations anonymously exactly to make the point that non-registered users shouldn't be allowed to make nominations on VfD. Personally, I don't need to be convinced of that. Uppland 4 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)
- fair point. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
- It is one thing to defend the existence of an article on something obviously notable in the case of a nomination by an established user who just hadn't understood the significance of the topic (possibly because the article was badly written, which is often the case). But this nomination is vandalism by an anonymous user. This particular vandal apparently discovered that if he adds some garbage to a page, he will be reverted in a couple of minutes, but by adding a VfD tag and going though the trouble of setting up a vote, he can keep dozens of wikipedians occupied for days voting and debating his little prank. I see no reason why we should play according to those rules. Uppland 3 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
- comment it might be considered bad form to remove the VfD before letting the votes finish... I appreciate that it doesn't deserve deletion (my vote above reflects that), but in that case it will clearly get a Keep vote overall. There's no evidence the VfD was added maliciously as it stands... why not just let the vote run its course? UkPaolo 3 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
