Deletion of 2007

Comment: However, while we're talking #IINFO, we need to kill "References to 2007 in fiction" now. It's well on its way to becoming yet another naff piece of bloated, |unverified, |OR fanlistcruft. By the way, nominating an obvious-keep article for deletion, in response to an AfD decision that you disagree with, most definitely ''is'' 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:POINT)

Comment: I fail to see how a list of Daily Show guests corresponds to a listing of events in the year 2007.  I believe that a 2007 article has great value, and far more then any television show.  Why bring up the Daily Show in your argument? If you believe an article needs to be deleted state the reasons why you think so, don't compare to another article or example ( see ).  It sounds as if you have nominated this article to use as a soapbox ( see #SOAP) your argument to delete a listing of the Daily Show guests. If you wish to nominate an article for deletion simply list why you feel that way. In any case I feel an article on the current year of 2007 is of some significance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:NOT)

Comment: not buying it.  Just because someone claims they're not acting in bad faith nor violating  doesn't mean they aren't
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: The current year is notable.  I can source it by the calender on my wall, or if you prefer, you can look at my date stamp.   For the record, because you disagree with the reason being offered for a deletion somewhere else, you're nominating an obviously valid article because "it fits the same criteria and therefore should be deleted".  Not only does that assume that we're proving non-notability (notability can be reached in several ways, and only one is needed to be included, not the other way around), but it's most definitely |disrupting to prove a point, despite what you think
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per everyone above. Admittedly, the nearest the nominator comes to  is the comment which suggests that nominating several articles for deletion in order to make a point is a bad thing (to my knowledge, only one is nominated), but that's roughly as close as one can come to it without actually going over the edge
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)