Deletion of Hollywood Heartbreakers

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  is a viable criterion, stick to checking whether ,  or  are fulfilled.  is only a shorthand for saying that the article hasn't attracted enough outside attention to meet those three policies
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV||WP:NN)

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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (WP:PROD||WP:POINT)

Comment: per my comments in other nominations above regarding #Wikipedia_is_not_censored|censorship and Wikipedia:Notability|notability. I will not repeat in order to avoid breaching 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:POINT)