Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Jones (2nd nomination)
notes that !votes should ''"{{tq|explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy.}}"'' This guideline is not met by the vast majority of "delete" comments here. "BLP" is cited often but no cites have ever been given (not here, not on the article talk page) of contentious or even non-neutral material in the article that was ''not'' referenced to a source (before the article was stubbed, that is). Primary sources were claimed as violating BLP but not even BLP has a blanket restriction on use of primary sources, only against their misuse; nor have there been any cites of specific misuses of primary sources (only "that's primary, you can't use it"). (The prime example being when Ronz simply deleted all such points in the article, with a lone "BLP" in the edit summary.) One SPA IP mentions "the quality requirement" but does not cite any specific WP P or G that defines such. Another refers vaguely to "Wikipedia's standard". In at least one case it was claimed that sources were e.g. "found to be unsuitable" but this "finding" was simply "argument by vigorous assertion" of the delete camp on the article talk page. In sum, I suggest that the "delete" comments here are not presenting anything like a strong case per ; most of them amount to arm-waving and rock-throwing (rocks with "BLP" painted on them
— User:Jeh, 05:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)