Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Candid Camera (Australian photographic exhibition)

off topic discussion
I've moved it here. also ongoing debate not related to notability detracts from others participating. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. From researching another deletion candidate it is clear that Libstar is carrying out a vendetta against BlueThird. That's probably not relevant to the discussion but I find it sickening and the sort of behaviour that probably loses wikepedia a great many editors. PRL42 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ADHOM. I made about 8 deletion nominations yesterday. I must have a vendetta against poor sourced articles with questionable notability. LibStar (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some questions that arise from that. Did you just happen to come across the other articles, or were you following links as a result of the discussions you've had with me elsewhere? With the other nominations, did you follow the guidelines, or did you just make the nominations, regardless of Wikipedia's policies? Did you read the articles properly, or just take against them? When making the nominations, did you say something like "the best coverage i could find," while ignoring the links already in place?
 * let's focus on the notability of this article not continually making WP:ADHOM attacks on me. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Statement of fact: you acted outside the guidelines in nominating this for deletion in the first place. You've acted outside the guidelines elsewhere, with, as PRL42 notes, the apparent common thread being the fact that I first created the pages. The 'ad hominem' attacks, such as they are, arise from your wilfully destructive activities.

Moved from nomination page

 * Comment. The situation so far: LibStar fails in his or her duty even to read the article properly, never mind to investigate it, having done exactly the same yesterday with a related article. He or she is therefore nominating articles for deletion in clear contravention of Wikipedia principles. When challenged, he or she deliberately attempts to obfuscate the argument and repeatedly ignores evidence in plain view. BlueThird (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: what is there to be done about users who are repeatedly and wilfully in contravention of Wikipedia principles, with no regard for the problems they are causing for others? BlueThird (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * there is no contravention of WP principle any poorly sourced article can be nominated for deletion. Making personal attacks against nominators because you don't like "your" articles being questioned is against WP principles see WP:NPA. repeatedly creating poorly sourced articles and expecting others to fill it with sources is strongly not recommended. I stand by this nomination, it's just another gallery 3 month exhibition, that got some coverage when it was on. LibStar (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The best reference you could find didn't even include the link at the end of the article. You didn't read the entry itself, so you clearly failed in the duties you are required to undertake before nominating something for deletion. That's in contravention of policy. BlueThird (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)