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.
Comment First, Mike, it seems like 80% of those could be
prodded and should not appear on AfD unless they're contested. Second, Agent 86, yes, you're way in
WP:POINT territory. As you point out, what is under discussion here is the article, not the nominator. Some nominators help their case by making a pitch for deletion, others don't. But in the end it has to be the article to make its case for inclusion, not the nominator for exclusion. If you're voting keep on an article without merit because you have an issue with the nominator you're disrupting WP to make your point. ~
trialsanderrors08:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Follow up. Please note that I in no way made any issue about the nominator or any sort of ad hominem argument. My issue is clearly with the article. My concern about
WP:POINT was that I might be verging on the edge of it by responding to each nomination; however, the nominator chose to make multiple nominations and therefore there is nothing wrong with responding to each. On re-reading POINT I see that, in my opinion, I've done nothing contrary to it. In any event, I think I succinctly made my position clear that I am commenting (not voting, as AfD is not a vote) on the articles and was
civil about it. Please
assume good faith.
Agent 8614:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment OK. I was saying this mostly because you pointed it out yourself, but I'll strike it and apologize. Nevertheless, stick with the articles at hand and not the nomination. Articles have to provide proof positive and not nominators proof positive. If you don't think
WP:NN is a viable criterion, stick to checking whether
WP:V,
WP:NOR or
WP:NPOV are fulfilled.
WP:NN is only a shorthand for saying that the article hasn't attracted enough outside attention to meet those three policies. ~
trialsanderrors16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. I recall this was one of the more notable pornographic films that
Traci Lords starred in. See
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electric_Blue_28_(second_nomination) - which was kept around on much weaker grounds. Only a "weak" keep until I can find documentation saying so, but my memory tells me this was one of her more famous films before the scandal. Side note, Agent 86 is doing nothing wrong in his comments and recommendations. Nominator has nominated a slew of articles for deletion all at once, with the exact same explanation or lack thereof for each one. Rather than assuming each to be trying to disrupt the Wikipedia, I'm assuming good faith for both.
AnonEMouse(squeak)15:07, 21 June 2006 (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.
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.
Comment First, Mike, it seems like 80% of those could be
prodded and should not appear on AfD unless they're contested. Second, Agent 86, yes, you're way in
WP:POINT territory. As you point out, what is under discussion here is the article, not the nominator. Some nominators help their case by making a pitch for deletion, others don't. But in the end it has to be the article to make its case for inclusion, not the nominator for exclusion. If you're voting keep on an article without merit because you have an issue with the nominator you're disrupting WP to make your point. ~
trialsanderrors08:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Follow up. Please note that I in no way made any issue about the nominator or any sort of ad hominem argument. My issue is clearly with the article. My concern about
WP:POINT was that I might be verging on the edge of it by responding to each nomination; however, the nominator chose to make multiple nominations and therefore there is nothing wrong with responding to each. On re-reading POINT I see that, in my opinion, I've done nothing contrary to it. In any event, I think I succinctly made my position clear that I am commenting (not voting, as AfD is not a vote) on the articles and was
civil about it. Please
assume good faith.
Agent 8614:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment OK. I was saying this mostly because you pointed it out yourself, but I'll strike it and apologize. Nevertheless, stick with the articles at hand and not the nomination. Articles have to provide proof positive and not nominators proof positive. If you don't think
WP:NN is a viable criterion, stick to checking whether
WP:V,
WP:NOR or
WP:NPOV are fulfilled.
WP:NN is only a shorthand for saying that the article hasn't attracted enough outside attention to meet those three policies. ~
trialsanderrors16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. I recall this was one of the more notable pornographic films that
Traci Lords starred in. See
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electric_Blue_28_(second_nomination) - which was kept around on much weaker grounds. Only a "weak" keep until I can find documentation saying so, but my memory tells me this was one of her more famous films before the scandal. Side note, Agent 86 is doing nothing wrong in his comments and recommendations. Nominator has nominated a slew of articles for deletion all at once, with the exact same explanation or lack thereof for each one. Rather than assuming each to be trying to disrupt the Wikipedia, I'm assuming good faith for both.
AnonEMouse(squeak)15:07, 21 June 2006 (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.