Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jed Brandt (activist)
There is an argument to be made around  applies here, but I am of the view that it is misapplied in this case. Having been in many AfDs and DRs etc (hell, one almost got me blocked for 24 hours! - and am a veteran of Epic ArbComs and never got blocks from that, so try to make the mental picture ;), I can say without a doubt the community's intent in supporting the  is based on the intent of trying to  because someone is hurt that their article was baleted, or cannot tolerate the existence of that article that was kept - that is, to keep AfD trolls at bay from arguing endlessly that *their article* got deleted or *that article* got kept. In this particular discussion,  doesn't apply because the comparison is one gauging current community consensus around what is notable and what isn't, which can only be reasonably done by looking at previous consensus. There is no attempt, that |that I can tell to be pointy. Quite the contrary, a reasoned argument was made for deletion and has been followed by reasoned arguments for keeping. Regardless of outcome, I ask the closing admin to concentrate on the cardinal point of notability keeping in mind the following
— NONE, NONE
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS||WP:POINT||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS||WP:DUCK (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)