Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Hayward (second nomination)
I wish I'd read  more thoroughly before chiming in here.  If I had, I'd have expressed a good deal more umbrage than I did.  First off,  is an '''essay, not''' an official policy.  It also doesn't apply.  The essay primarily talks about disguised ad hominem attacks; one of the examples it uses is "George Washington visited/slept/worked/ate at XYZ; George Washington was a terrible general and a lousy President, he owned slaves, lied about chopping down a cherry tree, and.... (many following paragraphs all about George with little if anything to do with XYZ)." Well that's NOT AT ALL a fair comparison to my rewrite.  Now to be fair, I do agree with the essay's point that it's not fair to put the balancing/expansion burden on others, which is why, despite my desire to be done with this article, I have done some expansion work myself.  However, and I cannot emphasize this enough:  '''More can still be done!''' This article is far from unsalvageable and should be kept
— User:Groupthink, 14:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:COATRACK||WP:COATRACK (Wikipedia:Coatrack articles)