Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case Study KSS: Acid Rain
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be original research ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; per nom -James Howard (talk/web) 14:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Should remember to vote myself! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably shouldn't, actually. You've made your arguments in the nomination, so what good does it do? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The instructions advise you to do so, of course... but I think you're right and won't in future. This must be my subconsious reason for forgetting! :) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are at least two reasons for voting, even if one is the nominator; first, one may nominate and still remain neutral (this is for example if you are not sure and nominated the article to collect other opinions); this really happens sometimes; I think there are at least one or two such cases in the votes for today; the second reason is that it facilitates the task of the closing administrator in counting the votes. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 00:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the nominator's job to get the ball rolling on the argument for deletion. I don't see that it matters whether a nomination gets counted as a vote. If you're right about the article, and you do your job well, you'll have all the influence you need just from persuading others to vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not saying that one must necessarily vote. The instructions for AfD say that you can cast the first vote, not that you have to. Your reasoning for not voting are also reasonable. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are at least two reasons for voting, even if one is the nominator; first, one may nominate and still remain neutral (this is for example if you are not sure and nominated the article to collect other opinions); this really happens sometimes; I think there are at least one or two such cases in the votes for today; the second reason is that it facilitates the task of the closing administrator in counting the votes. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 00:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The instructions advise you to do so, of course... but I think you're right and won't in future. This must be my subconsious reason for forgetting! :) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably shouldn't, actually. You've made your arguments in the nomination, so what good does it do? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, original research. Looks like someone publishing their lecture notes. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 18:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- my take is this page is probably in progress... give it some time to be furnish. The content is relevant and fine... just needed an editorial touch... KEEP IT.--Maybelline Tan 03:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.