Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Acacia Strain
I disagree that the nomination was illegitimate.  The article has existed for over 10 months.  In all that time, no legitimate source has been added.  Articles may not stand around unsourced on Wikipedia forever.  Adding tags is helpful when new information is added that can likely be sourced, but this information was not new.   The only legitimate part of  (which I do not believe has the force of policy, as it does not match what , the actual policy, says) is #9.  #1 is untrue, #2 doesn't apply (this article is not a stub, has not recently been vandlized, etc.), #3 blatantly contradicts  and  (that is, no one ''has'' to choose to use tags rather than remove unverified information; had I removed the unverified info, nothing would have been left in the article), #9 I violated, and #10 doesn't apply (this is not a recently created article).  In any event, the AfD did what no one bothered to do for over a year--make this article follow the core  and  policies.  That means, in my opinion, that nominating for AfD was the correct approach.  As such I now
— NONE, NONE
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BEFORE||WP:DEL||WP:V||WP:BLP||WP:V||WP:BLP (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)