Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology centers

message: I moved the comments to this section to make this AfD more readable. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 21:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

message: Just a reminder that an AfD is not a vote.  I know it looks like one, and has a lot in common with one, but it isn't a vote.  It's an attempt to achieve a consensus decision, or failing that, to measure community feeling.  Which is why the opinions of newcomers and outsiders don't always get considered - they aren't representative of the wider wikipedian community.
The closing admin uses the page to make a decision.  The raw numbers are a major part, even the major part of it, but it's not a vote.
Regards, Ben Aveling 10:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD is not a vote 

message: This AfD acheived 25/10/3. That means there were 2.5 times the delete comments as there were keep's. I'm all for leaving it open ended, and 'no consensus'ing' it when there really is no consensus, however, in this case, it's pretty clear, that there was, and that it was for Delete. If anything, if 25/10 isn't overwhelming enough, I'd be up for letting voting go on for another day or two. It's my opinion that the closing editor may have made a mistake when closing this one... --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 05:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's exactly what happened. Can we ask someone to look at this again? --Last Malthusian 09:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know someone to ask, go for it. I'm halfway tempted to re-open this on WP:DRV. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 10:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What part of "AfD is not a vote" did y'all not understand? Quantity of votes doesn't insure quality of votes. Several of the "Delete" votes were ignored because they said things like "I hate Scientology" and (my personal favorite) "Wikipedia is not for others".  wikipediatrix 12:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one person claimed a hatred for Scientologistics, so "said things like" is misleading. And I can't find anyone that said "Wikpiedia is not for others". 'Several' means 'more than two', and you only have one delete vote that was clearly invalid. Conversely, many of the 'keep' votes were rather weak, mentioning that the article needs cleanup (so I expect there'll be a renomination soon if it isn't) and one rather nonsensical (Zordrac's "beautifully written" comment about an article with no actual writing whatsoever is surely the complement to Stifle's "I hate Scientologistics"). Diablo actually closed with 'no consensus' because he didn't feel that 65% was a sufficiently high majority. That's his decision, even if some of us disagree. We'll see what happens when/if it's renominated. --Last Malthusian 12:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "jtmichcock" said "Wikipedia is not for others". "T.Anthony" said "I'll admit I do hate Scientology". I used the word "like" as in "such as", meaning these were two examples of questionable delete votes, not that all other delete votes were just like these in content. Thought that was rather obvious, but oh well. wikipediatrix 12:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check I voted, albeit weakly, for keep. I think this article could eventually be something and is useful for a project. However "no concensus" I don't think is quite accurate. It should've been given more time to reach that, but I think as it stood the concensus was to delete. That might've changed, but I'm uncertain. And although I did say that about Scientology, I also agreed the "I hate scientologists" person should be discounted or not taken serious. In fact the first statement I put in the little box was that to highlight that that one person's opinion was based on prejudice. True I think scientology is weird and harmful, but I do not hate scientologists. The closest people I've seen to it struck me as being good albeit troubled people. Added to that for a time I tried to take out several unsubstantiated allegations at the David Miscavige article.--T. Anthony 15:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  My apologies T, I mistook you for one of the deletionists... wikipediatrix 15:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The three other votes all count with the keep votes for the purposes of determining whether there is a supermajority to delete. --- Charles Stewart 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No cosensus? Something wrong there....