Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Majors
Baseline Keep): Refer not to |waxy but to  and this particular quote therein: "Those working at newspapers, magazines, journals and other secondary sources have to make sure that a subject is notable before they write a piece on it, because if they do not, no-one will read it, their employer will lose money, and they will get fired. So we can rely on their judgement of "how notable is notable" - but we cannot rely on ours."  Poseidon or pneumatic or whatever his name is doesn't refute my point but makes it.  Why walk this silly tightrope of 'all references are equal but some are more equal than others'?  If you want to dig up your cross-country win reported by the Jellystown Gazette and include that ribbon-breaking glory-shot taken by your mom 'go ahead with your bad se'f', as we say back home.  My vision of Wikipedia is unlike that of the stiff leather-bound Encyclopædia Britannica I grew up with (and still exists for all those encyclopedia puritans out there): as long as sources are cited, grammatical and objective standards are maintained, and photos are free from copyright infringement, I say let it all ride, from Bill Majors, through Steve Lomasney, to Gerald P. Pulley.  Let's allow Wikipedia to reflect the fullness of all documented information rather than making it into some public version of the World Book Encyclopedia
— User:Davidabram, 17:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:WAX||WP:NOTBIGENOUGH (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)