Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Rose Day

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Final tally at close: 2 Keep; 10 Delete; 19 discarded anons/socks. Owen× ☎ 00:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Rose Day[edit]

A personal essay on a supposed holiday at Harvard Law School, but this reads like a hoax to me. Why would people celebrate a guy who hasn't graduated yet? This is just nonsense in my eyes at present. Harro5 21:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • (responding to first comment by 140.247.237.231 in anonymous ip votes section)I have better idea, Nick -- it is Nick, right? -- point us to the section of harvard.edu that announces it and we can take it from there. Until then, delete. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 05:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eddie. The article verges on patent nonsense. Not a single source provided in the article. You'd've thought someone at law school would understand the importance of that. --Last Malthusian 10:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity and student pranks are nn. Catchpole 17:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Harvard ergo notable. --SockpuppetSamuelson 11:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: So you would support an article on every paving stone and restroom at Harvard? I don't really support that idea. Stifle 10:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I note that my contribution, which was properly chronologically entered under Comments, has been forcibly removed here. It is my impression that a great deal of what was here three days ago -- votes, albeit some of them anonymous -- has been removed ... edited out. I now ask that my contribution to returned to Comments since it appears clear to me that the cabal have edited these votes to fit their agenda --SockpuppetSamuelson 13:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only other contribution you have made to thie AfD logged in as "SockpuppetSamuelson" appears above. You can look at the history of this AfD to verify this yourself if you like [1]. I spent nearly an hour trying to sort out the mess this AfD was in yesterday. It's entirely possible that I accidentally deleted some text, but if I did it was most definitely a) not text from you and b) not some act of a "cabal" acting to supress discussion/votes on this AfD to fit some agenda. If I made an error and did accidentally delete text, then by all means please show me what that text was by citing from the history of this article as noted above. Nobody is above fault, including me. If I made an error, I'm quite happy to admit it and fix it. --Durin 14:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Google returns....nothing relevant. If, as according to the article's talk page, Nick Rose Day is "of national political significance" certainly some website out there would have mention of it? Yet, not a single one does. Odd for something that's not a hoax. Also, the ridiculous amount of anon IP votes and attempts at sock puppetry does not lend credibility to the article; rather the opposite. --Durin 18:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to masses of anonymous votes. Stifle 10:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fight the deletionist cabal. Onward, wikipedia. Naif 03:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete', unverified and probably nonsense.--nixie 04:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not everything at Harvard is encyclopedic. The squirrels of Harvard Yard aren't notable. Unless this has gained attention with the broader public this is just a campus tradition. Durova 17:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Anonymous IP votes" a.k.a Unbiased Efforts to "unmask [perceived] sockpuppet attempts"[edit]

To all the anon IPers; please at least attach a "~~~~" to the end of your comments. Certainly if you're capable of getting into Harvard Law School you're capable of following that basic instruction, yes? Besides, if you don't we'll do it for you and will as done below. Thank you. --Durin 18:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(The following is sorted by IP rather than date/time)

  • Keep - I too go to Harvard Law School. This day is real. This is the second year it was celebrated, and this year it was bigger than ever. Nick had nothing to do with the entry at all. The entire point is that he is so nice he would never do something like this. This was about everyone else recognizing him, and his holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.41.95 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 14 December 2005
  • Keep - I'm one of the women who wore red last year in support of Nick Rose day. It's a nice idea, and, while it might still be a small holiday, we really did celebrate it, and it's existence was documented on blackboards throughout the school last week, urging people to celebrate. The whole school also got two emails (at least) urging everyone to celebrate by thanking the nice guys in our lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.42.254 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 December 2005
  • Keep - i attend HLS and Nick Rose Day was celebrated complete with a Bar Review. It is a real event, regardless of whether or not it's in the Advisor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.41.250 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 14 December 2005
Attempted sock puppet votes by 24.61.41.250:
  • Keep - Is Nick Rose Day real? Well, in the words of one of the greatest thespians of our time, Ben Affleck in his earth-shattering performance in Armageddon... "I hope so. Otherwise what the hell are we fighting for." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.41.250 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 December 2005
  • Keep - Say what you will about the tenets of Nick Rose Day. At least its an ethos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.41.250 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 December 2005
  • Keep - Why is this so hard to believe? Do you really think that Harvard announcements would be open to the public? Do you really think we want the unwashed masses, the riff-raff that populate Cambridge, attending our events? Forbid it almighty God! As should be clear by now from the voluminous response from Harvard Law students, this is a real event. The Nick Rose Day Happy Hour was held at Tommy Doyles in Harvard Square. This celebration occurred immediately following the Nick Rose Day party, an event that was heavily attended. Perhaps if those of you who doubt this holiday’s existence try very hard and pray fervently to your gods, you too can attend Harvard Law School and experience this deeply significant cultural event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.136.63 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 December 2005
  • Keep - I do not attend HLS, but I am a lawyer, I do know several people who currently attend HLS, I interview applicants from HLS, and I am well aware of Nick Rose Day. First person accounts should be allowed for a Wikipedia entry; any suggestion about 'standards' not allowing first person accounts is absurd. You can contact any number of HLS students (or me - bpashler@gmail.com) to verify - if after that you feel that this is all part of an elaborate conspiracy to invent a tradition out of whole cloth, then feel free to edit the section to include that commentary. But to delete the content in the face of first person verifiable accounts (and no verifiable does not require a web link - check your definition of veracity) is not consistent with the standards of Wikipedia, so get off your high horse...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.182.130 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 December 2005
  • Keep 63.115.63.171 23:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nick Rose is for real. Jesus, we don't have time for hoaxes over here!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.11.31 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 14 December 2005
  • Keep - the future leaders of the legal, financial and political world rely on Nick Rose Day to bring cheer to them in the cold, dark days of a Cambridge December as exams approach. While it is of relatively recent vintage, it has become widely accepted, and was celebrated on a school-wide basis in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.187.253 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 December 2005
  • Keep - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.0.209 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 December 2005
  • KEEP Though I know the wikipedia holier/nerdier/somehow-better-linked-to-a-general social and intellectual-conscienceness-than-thou "community" will nix it. HLS brethren, look at the discussion for (the ultimate) deletion of [D-bag football]. It is quite enlightening to see what others think they know about this school, its students, or even what a reasonable argument to keep a page looks like. Again, the anti-HLS bias present in this "community" ranges from innane contempt to outright animosity. Know that comments like "I fear for the future of American jurisprudence" and "if you're a law student, shouldn't you....(wow, whoever wrote that, just wow)" reflect a larger issue with the people on this site ... considering the number of undeleted, horribly written pages on this server that have little to do with anything of importance (by any definition ...even the mighty Wikipedia's, which you will find means nothing). Seriously, look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/D-Bag_Football and see where well-articulated, logical, and, frankly, CORRECT arguments will get you. See the SAME BS COMMENTS? .............................The irony is simple; the better you defend your site, the more they will go after you. Make a broad argument? You are too dumb for law school, much less Harvard. Mop the floor with a Nozickian deconstruction of their flimsy premises? Well now you are simply being pretentious, and hey, you aren't that smart anyway you over-privileged snoot. Point out their OBVIOUS prejudice? What are you talking about you elite ass -- get out of your ivory tower and taste the real word (for a change). Now for the record, I am bitter and angry at Wikipedia, but not for the loss of the d-bag article .... it is for the hypocrisy that seems more than apparent by this alledged community. Just remember HLS folk, even after they delete this article (and they will, take my advice and save the html now) you can peruse Wikipedia for MUCH more important celebrations like, say, Linucon. Yeah. Right. Oh, am I myself prejudicial for calling out the nerds? Well, examine the profile of the magnificent leader who deleted the d-bag page (re-link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/D-Bag_Football) and call me a liar. Oh, and before you call me anything really read that page: it is more than likely your whine has already been addressed. ----Dgaston 16:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)140.247.205.92 04:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)DGaston[reply]
  • Keep - this is a real holiday celebrated by students at the Harvard Law School, with defined rituals (wearing pink/red) and a real-life inspiration (the actual Nick Rose). This year it was recognized by the Dean of Students, campus social organizations, and several student-run parties at local bars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.207.39 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 14 December 2005
  • Um. I am at Harvard Law School, I know all the people involved. Anyone who wants to find out if this is true can email me. I will give you my real school email address and then send you proof of this. I can sent pictures, a notice from the school announcing the holiday, and a notice of the HL Central Bar Review in honor of the day. If you doubt this, i can prove it. Please do not delete this entry. Email me at Saucyintruders@gmail.com. Also, check out the Harvard Law School Section 5 Blog at: saucyintruders.blogspot.com, which has a link to this email address also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.237.231 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 December 2005
  • Keep - I celebrated this holiday last year and this year, you may think its unimportant but it is very real nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.242.217 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 14 December 2005
  • Keep - this has become an important annual tradition at Harvard Law School. It is a bona fide holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.46.120 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 14 December 2005
  • Keep - Highly culturally significant event in the lives of the particular population. Important for understanding the inner-workings of a devious and twisted mind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.217.177 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 14 December 2005
  • Keep - Nick Rose is the heart and soul of Harvard Law School. If you do not keep this web site, you will be sorry when he replaces Chief Justice Roberts AND Justice Ginsberg in 25 years. Yes, that's right, Nick Rose is so awesome that he will replace TWO justices at once! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.204 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 December 2005
  • Keep - I am also an HLS student and can verify that Nick Rose Day is an actual event. Thought I'm not sure that anything we do will convince anyone. (dklein) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.22.200 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 December 2005

NB on "sock puppet" votes. As it turns out HLS is expensive, and as such we students like to get what are called "roomates" in the parlance of our times. this being the case, myself and my 2 roomates (as well as other apartments i might add) share the same wireless connection and (lordy!) the same IP address. Thus, any claim of "sock puppet" votes is in fact re-tahd-ed as people here would say. good day. 24.61.41.250 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (no idea what "24.61.41.250 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)" means.[reply]

  • And how does anyone external to Harvard verify that there's a procession of people using the same IP and not one person attempting to sockpuppet? We don't. Regardless, the long procession of anon-IP votes is not helping to keep the article. As I previously noted, it is in fact harming it. If you want this article to remain, then provide some externally verifiable proof. How about scanning an article about the holiday from The Harvard Crimson and tossing it up on a web server somewhere? Better yet, reference the article on their website. I searched their website though, and there's nary a peep about it. If it's such a big event, how come the Crimson doesn't even cover it? Look, all of these assertions by the anonymous IPs are meaningless without verifiable sources. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. We need *something* to go on. --Durin 13:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Long, pointless text" a.k.a. Verifiable Evidence copy/pasted from an Official Harvard Law School Publication (access to internal servers required, this is why it is pasted) nonsense[edit]

No, its not Nick, although Nick is quite amused by all this controversy. The section of the website, which is called the Advisor, http://internal.law.harvard.edu/adviser/2005/12/08/general.php, is protected. Hence, I can forward you the email that has the listing of titles (although the links wont work for you). The Advisor is the internal site at Harvard Law School that lists all the events and things happening on campus. Here is the email with the links: HLS Adviser: 2005-12-08

HLS Adviser: PDF

Administrative Announcements Adviser Schedule Spring 2006 T Pass Orders E-mail Alert De-Stress Exam Study Break for 2Ls and 3Ls See "Midnight Pancake Breakfast" in Events section. Resident Assistant on Duty

Career Services HLS Job Bank NEWS @ OCS International Opportunities 2006 Judicial Clerkships

Clinical and Pro Bono Programs Clinical Program Information Important Clinical Deadlines See "Death Penalty Clinical Meeting" Events section. Pro Bono Information Hurricane Relief Opportunities For Students

Competitions International Online Competition in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution Sovereignty Symposium Scholarships

Course Announcements Winter Term Courses Food and Drug Law, Winter Term (Hutt) International Law and International Relations, Winter Term (Hathaway) Winter Trial Advocacy Workshop (Murray, et. al.) Spring Term Courses Developing an Interdisciplinary Approach to Health Management for Older Adults (GR 705.40) Legal Issues: Seminar (Professors Heymann and Rosenberg) Quantitative Social Science, Law, Expert Witnesses, and Litigation: Seminar (Stephenson, Rubin--FAS, Greiner--FAS) Possible Writing Group on Human Trafficking and Involuntary Servitude (Sidel)

Events Yearbook Portraits for All Classes The Forgotten 'Refugees': Protecting People Uprooted in their Own Countries Speaker's Freedom and Maker's Knowledge: The Case of Pornography Death Penalty Clinical Meeting Auction Night--Fun and Excitement The UN and Human Rights: An Informal Conversation with the New High Commissioner DOJ Information Session for 1Ls Scales of Justice Fall Concert Why We Want Immediate Withdrawal From Iraq and You Should Too: A Lunch Discussion With HLS Peace Conversation with Congressman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Heyman Fellowship Panel: Young Alums in Federal Government Public Interest Auction 2006 Volunteer Kickoff Meeting Midnight Pancake Breakfast Catholic Mass

Fellowships Lewis and Houston Fellowships for Law Teaching Reginald Lewis International Summer 2006 Internships

Financial Aid--J.D. Students Summer Public Interest Funding December E-Bill (The "Spring" Bill) Second Semester Cash Advance Checks Outside Resources Zuckerman Fellowships Iranian-American Bar Association Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago Academic Scholarship Program The Bristol County Bar Association

General Interest Happy Nick Rose Day Holiday Gift Drive HLS Giving Tree: A Gift Drive for Homeless Children Seeking Nominations for 2006-07 Scholars at Risk Fellows

Informational Technology Services ITS Student Services Changes in Help Desk/Computer Lab Schedule Exam Quiet Hours Take-Home Exam Computer Reservation Tips for Avoiding Computer Disasters During Exams New iCommons Contact for Auditors/Cross-registered Students

Jobs Student Assistants Sought for Winter Trial Advocacy Workshop Promote Ideas of the Harvard Negotiation Project Seeking an Assistant for Student with a Disability Professors Roe and Ferrell Seek RA Professor Goldsmith Seeks Summer RA

Library Exam and Holiday Hours Westlaw Westlaw Weekly Search Tip You've Got Questions, We've Got Answers

Public Interest Walk-in Hours Brief OPIA Closings Mass Law Consortium Job Fair at Suffolk Switzer Fellowship Deadline Rebellious Lawyering Conference Deadline for SPIF Registration is tomorrow, Dec. 9. See details in the Financial Aid--J.D. section. See "Public Interest Auction 2006 Volunteer Kickoff Meeting" and "Heyman Fellowship Panel: Young Alums in Federal Government" in Events section. See "Holiday Gift Drive" in the General Interest section.

General Information

To view this week's Adviser online, visit: http://internal.law.harvard.edu/adviser/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.237.231 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 December 2005

  • Why look: it's a whole lot of typing, alleging to be a bulletin, but unverfiable because its supposed source is completely inaccessible to the public. My bullshit meter has officially pegged. This isn't some stupid stunt to suck up to Alan Dershowitz, is it? --Calton | Talk 05:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

The anon 140.247.237.231 (talk · contribs) defending this nonsense left a message on my Talk page. My reply to the IP talk, but reproduced here to be sure he sees it:

I don't know why you are so bent on deleting this, but you are mistaken. Nick had nothing to do with the entry. We invited you to email and talk to us. If you care enough, you can find out the truth. Otherwise, just leave the page alone.

Nick or whomever you are:

Spare me the invitation as there is nothing to "discuss". This is not a negotiation, these are standards -- and not my standards, Wikipedia's standards -- you must meet. Don't like 'em? Go to MySpace.


  • Wikipedia:Verifiability - What you put here has to be third-party verifiable. References provided by the subject don't count. If Nick Rose Day is true and notable, then it should simplicity itself to point to third-party, independent (i.e.; unmassaged or tampered with by you) references. Harvard's offcial website seems the simplest, most obvious, and least prone to tampering, and ought to have something on its official pages. Point us to the specific (public) page or some other third-party source.
  • Wikipedia:Vanity - "Vanity articles", as Wikipedia calls them, are verboten. to quote:
    • Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.
    • This article is bursting at the seams with vanity.
  • Wikipedia:Autobiography - If you're Nick, don't write about yourself.

Also, if you're a law student, shouldn't you:

a) understand the importance of and be familiar with the rules of an undertaking; i.e., Wikipedia?
b) understand the importance of and be familiar with working within the rules instead of trying to sleaze your way around them?
c) be able to write clearly? The article looks like it wouldn't pass muster in a junior-high English class.

--Calton | Talk 05:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It appears that Wikipedia is overrun by people with way too much time on their hands, something which I do not have. I can no longer fight this battle. If you want verification, I will forward you emails from a harvard law school account. I can take pictures of stuff for you. whatever you want. I can not change that fact that Harvard Law School protects that part of its site. I dont know what else you want from me. That article was written by a few students here. We are in the middle of finals here, hence the lack of careful attention to editing etc. I cant defend this anymore. If you are so nuts about deleting it then just do it. Maybe some day I wil re-post it and try and work this all out. Everything here can be verified. And no, this is not done by Nick.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.141.101 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 14 December 2005

  • Wow. It appears that Wikipedia is overrun by people with way too much time on their hands, something which I do not have. Funny, you seemed to have plenty of time to whip up this nonsense -- and concoct excuses why you couldn't prove it -- to be talking about other people with "way too much time on their hands".
  • And guy, "overrun"? If this is what passes for legal thinking at one of America's most prestigious law schools, I fear for the future of American jurisprudence. --Calton | Talk 08:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "And guy, "overrun"? If this is what passes for legal thinking at one of America's most prestigious law schools, I fear for the future of American jurisprudence. --Calton | Talk 08:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)" - since when is a wikipedia entry classified as legal thinking? Does a proctologist have to talk about anuses all day? Not everything done by a lawyer (let alone a law student) meets the rigourous critera for formal legal reasoning. Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns? Well, putting too much effort into something like Wikipedia would not be very smart, would it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.141.101 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 December 2005
  • ...since when is a wikipedia entry classified as legal thinking? Okay, I was being overly specific: since there were only THREE responses total to this AfD when you whined about Wikipedia being "overrun", you displayed remarkably poor reasoning and logic skills generally -- fundamental skills important in the more nuanced practice of legal reasoning. Finding these shortcomings in someone claiming to be a Harvard Law student is like finding a CalTech student who can't do long division or a triathlete who can't swim.
  • Does a proctologist have to talk about anuses all day? No, but he should be able to tell his ass from his elbow. I'm thinking that this may pose a problem for you. Calton | Talk 14:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Calton, please read my previous post. And to the brilliant mind who found the time to move and reformat it (as well as to subject it to de facto marginalization becasue I, like others new to the "community," didn't create accounts...) please move it back so that people may compare it to comments like the one above: it is now officially signed.--Dgaston 16:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dear Calton, please read my previous post. I did. Legacy admission, right? --Calton | Talk 02:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • What does that mean? Was Mr. Rose a legacy? Does that matter? I really don't know ... clue me in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgaston (talk • contribs) 08:42, 16 December 2005
            • Thank you, you just answered my question. --Calton | Talk 23:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was reading "Legacy Admission" in a context related to academic institutions, i.e. family connections linked to school admission. I now assume that is not what you meant -- and that my above questions are unrelated to yours. Thanks. --Dgaston 05:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to undo the changes I made to unsort logged in and non-logged in votes. If you feel there is a need to do so, then feel free to go through the ~hour of work to do so. Personally, I don't see there being a reason for doing so. There is no de facto marginalization. The votes for anon-IPs exist and have not been removed from the page. They've been sorted by IP in an attempt to quell the apparent sock-puppet attempts and allow the admin that closes this AfD to do so more easily rather than having to contend with the mess this AfD was in before I did the sort. I invite you to review Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_etiquette, in particular the 4th bullet. Thanks for your time. --Durin 16:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • so you have "~hour" to support one point of view but 0 time for the other. Interesting. That seems pretty unbiased to me. ... Right. Also, if you think your little effort to help the admin is unbiased, either you are a liar or a fool. I really don't care which, but I am leaving your biased edits for the admin. to judge. Also, for the future, please leave the admission criteria for hls to those who are qualified to make such assesments. See "if you're capable of getting into Harvard Law School you're capable of following that basic instruction, yes?"--Dgaston 08:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • My changes did not support one view or another. My changes organized the AfD in an appropriate manner. It was horribly formatted before my changes, and very difficult to follow. I don't particularly care if you think I am a liar or fool. I acted in good conscience, and my conscience is clear. Rather than spending so much time attempting to rebuke me and others for all sorts of perceived sins, why not spend the time to find some externally verifiable information regarding this supposed holiday? You're not helping keep the article with your efforts. If you really want the article kept, then exert some of that energy into finding some sources. --Durin 13:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think you are a liar or a fool, and I apologize if you found the comments above to imply as such. I was strictly speaking towards the "percieved sin" of biased organization. I (and others) found these "housekeeping" edits to be so obviously slanted that the only avenues of denial appeared to be deceit or ignorance. Well, that plus my perception of you and others harboring a healthy bias against HLS. But that is not how a discussion should run, and I apologize to all for nudging it off track. However, I took your advice and refocused my efforts. With some cross-checking (verifying some "long pointless text" posted above), I found cause for some reorganization of my own. I have re-confirmed a source and participated in some clean-up. Thank you for the sage advice. --Dgaston 08:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edited the entry to remove some of the personal refernces (not put there by me to begin with), in hopes that this will make the entry more palatable to the censors here. I dont know what else to tell you - the primary source is protected although I can forward the email that the administration sends to everyone each week with the weeks announcements. 140.247.238.138 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the supporters: compare your article to Columbia University Marching Band. They're in the encyclopedia because they've received national press coverage and been on the David Letterman show. Durova 17:42, 16 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Rose_Day&oldid=1080017396"