Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Captain Cannabis

Lobbying by user Verne Andru
User has been persistently and massively lobbying the AfD page. Could that material be extracted and put in a separate section or on this AfD discussion page? — Athænara  ✉  20:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article you reference is called an "AfD debate." A debate implies a give and take of positions for the sake of clarification. I am engaging in a debate, not "persistently and massively lobbying" as you assert. Verne Andru 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually its a "discussion" not intended to be a debate. And what you are doing I think Athaenara correctly described as lobbying, especially given your COI. I would also like to suggest that much of your comments may be hurting your case more then helping it, as it comes across as rather desperate. Commenting on almost every single delete with many of the same points over and over. The best thing you can do for your article, is when seeing the reasons people cite for suggestion Delete is to go back and try to improve your article to satisfy their concerns.  If the deletes keep coming it means you did not satisfy them adequately (for instance I myself fail to see notability). Russeasby 21:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. The article discussing the deletion policy specifically states "Don't be afraid to participate. You are welcome!" It also states "Deletion is often decided through debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." Every reference to AfD cites the deletion process as a "debate" not a "discussion." Furthermore, the article on arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion  specifically states:


 * Just a vote


 * Example: Keep --VoteyMcVoteson 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)


 * This is probably the worst kind of argument that can be made in a deletion debate because, well, it isn't an argument. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates. Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature is almost certainly not going to be considered by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Keep" to "Strong keep" will not make it any more relevant. Try to present actual reasons as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it's an argument based on the right reasons.


 * I would love to follow your advice and "improve" the article to address the deficiencies stated in the "vote" but none are given. It's a bit of frustration at this, not desperation, you are sensing. Since these "votes" will ultimately bear no weight in the final deliberation, according to this article, I agree with you that I should probably not be encouraging elaboration. But since my goal is to make the article as strong as possible, I feel it's important for all issues to be put on the table so they can be addressed in the clear light of day by all parties involved. Verne Andru 21:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I know you are trying to oblige our concerns, but if it is not notable there is very little you can do to change that. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But this is the point I'm trying to get across. The Captain Cannabis article is indeed notable according to the Wikipedia criteria - plus. You people may not like it, but that's not a consideration for deliberation. To meet the threshold test of notability the topic [Captain Cannabis] must be directly cited in multiple media [with a broad definition of what is considered media] that are independent and arms-length. This is the case in at least 3 of the citations given. Those same guidelines specifically preclude subjectivity and popularity from being given any consideration. What is most frustrating is none of you people seem to have read, or if you have read, appear to understand the threshold tests and how they are to be applied. Wikipedia policies are very clear, refreshingly so, and the Captain Cannabis article as it now sits complies fully. Just to say "it's not notable" fails on so many levels, not the least being you have failed to show exactly which part of the relevant policy you find it deficient in and why. If you don't or can't, that is fine. According to Wikipedia policy each and every "vote" that is simply a "Delete" with a signature will be ignored and the article will survive. Verne Andru 22:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you may be skipping past the words non-trivial in that policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all. The policy states: "Non-trivial" means that sources address the subject directly and no original research is needed to extract the content.2 It does not require that a topic be the sole focus of a source." Captain Cannabis is addressed directly in 3 of the citations, and there is no original research needed to extract the content. As a bonus it is the sole focus of the sources that are at arms-length and independent. The citations comply fully with this definition, which is the only definition applicable in the matter at hand. Verne Andru 00:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)