== Re:Articles for deletion/Captain forever == 

 I've just read your comments on the Captain Forever AFD page and I thought I would explain a few things, since you seemed confused. 

 First, it is rare for an AFD (article for deletion) page to be closed before about seven days. There needs to be a very clear consensus, one-way or the other, for this to happen. This consensus does not, at present, exist in the Captain Forever AFD and, as such, it is unlikely to be closed for some days. The mods (or admins as the are generally called on Wikipedia) are unlikely to intervene before that point. 

 Second, your latest comment seems to imply that you think you should wait until the AFD is over ('so we can get this tag removed and start expanding a bit more on the article') to expand the article, nothing could be further from the truth. You are positively encouraged to make bold changes to articles under the AFD process. One of the principle functions of an AFD is cause such a change in a substandard article. In fact may really good articles only became that way after editors, fearing their deletion, improved them during a AFD. 

 Finally I would give you this advice when 'voting' (its not really voting but the term will do for now) on an AFD.  

 Comments like 'its notable in X community', 'I like it', 'I would pay money for it' or 'its famous in my opinion' are seldom helpful. It is best to try to appear detached from a debate. Do not show a strong personal connection to the subject of the article for it will just make people dismiss your views, no matter how well formulated.  

 Always always always cite policy if you can. Read over WP:N and the sub articles. There are very few articles that you cannot make a case for based on some rule in there. Once you've cited a policy (for example WP:BK or WP:GNG) always cite the part of the policy that passes (for example for a book that’s won a notable award I would say WP:BK point 2) and then explicitly say what part of the article meets that point. 

 In the Captain Forever AFD, I cited WP:WEB point 3, WP:BK point 2 and WP:NOTFILM point 3. I could have just said it won a major award and that’s notable but I did not. I cited policy showing that winning a major award is generally considered notable and in doing so, I think I made a better, more convincing, case. 

 An argument like this is worth so much more than the other kind its not even funny. Not only will closing admins pay more attention to your comments but new users (both new to Wikipedia and new to this particular AFD), coming along to the AFD, are much more likely to come in on your side if they see a well reasoned response that clearly citing policy arguing for ‘Keep’. Humans are very much creatures of first impression and its hard for us to change are opinion about something when we've made up our minds. 

 Anyway, I hope this helps.