Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Frank Carney


 * Apparently I'm not allowed to comment on the voting, so I will just post a note asking all to look at Category:Film_producer_stubs, take the first one listed for example, Acobus_Rose. Since I'm sure there is no bias involved in this AFD, all the voters here will promptly go through this category and apply the same standards to all the articles in the category. I'm sure about half of them will be listed for AFD tomorrow.Tstrobaugh 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny how you wanted other people's votes disregarded by citing some essay but ignore the parts about how "other stuff exists" and "it's all or nothing" are listed on that same page as being invalid arguments. DreamGuy 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Funny indeed, so is it legitimate to cite these arguments or not? You thought it was so illegitmate that you censored my comments. Now your citing it to back up your own arguments, well which is it?Tstrobaugh 18:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And to answer your question left on my talk page, I would consider someone uses an essay that's not even a guideline, much less policy, as reason to invalidate votes in an AfD to be Wikilawyering in spirit, if not by the literal definition. It's pretty weak argument to be citing an essay as a reason some opinions don't count. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As weak as say, duh "Delete per above"? My point was to show that these weren't arguments and to save space by citing the place where my "weak" argument already in existence. And at least I'm citing reasons, even if it's an essay as to why some opinions don't count, you simply deleted my opinion, what's your reason again as to why it doesn't count?Tstrobaugh 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neo, I asked you, on your page, which of the four condition of wikilawyering you think I violated. What is your answer?Tstrobaugh 17:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)