Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter (second nomination)
please note, from : "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself."..."The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments."..."Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates ), "original research" (violates ), and "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective notability criteria. (In the cases of non-notable biographical articles, it is better to say "does not meet " to avoid insulting the subject.) The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates ) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." Simply saying 'I don't like it' is not sufficient, nor is a simple vote in favour or against
— User:Michaelsanders, 00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:AFD||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:BIO||WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)