Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Frank Stilwell

Arbitrary break
[outdent] And by the way, Niteshift36, what exactly put the pineapple up your kazoo about Stilwell? We have a TREMENDOUS problem with unsourced BLPs, 50,000 of them, which are of far less notable people, and ALIVE, who we cannot get deleted: HERE. There are 175 new BLPs created EVERY DAY, of which about 10% or more, are a disaster, and which need immediate PROD and deletion. 17 EVERY DAY. There's not enough people to do this work, and here you are, stuck in 1882, trying to delete a bio of a DEAD guy who appears as a character in two modern films about that era. That is truly bizarre. Truly. S B Harris 21:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven;t attacked you or made you an issue personally, so I'd appreciate it if you keep it civil and about the topic. If you have something you want to gripe about me personally, take it to my talk page. I don't care how many BLP's there are (and this is not a BLP). I don't care how many of them suck. I found this one. Wehn I find ones that I think need nominated, I nominate them. I made a good faith nomination because I do not believe the man meets the noability criteria and it is very lacking in reliable sources. Your whole response above is nothing more than arguing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT, which are both arguements to avoid. I appreciate that you wrote the article, but don't take it personally and don't make it personal. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And your argument is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT (see also WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) plus severe misuse of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which you really should read. Including this part which states (please read this three times): "Thus 'inherent notability' is basically codification of OSE [Other stuff exists]." Another way of saying that the fact that a heck of a lot of other stuff exists, is one way of detecting what the WP:consensus on a given notability issue is. In fact, it is the only good way, and the example given is that high schools are notable but grade schools are not. Why? Because of the way WP has always done it, is why. The appeal that this is OTHERSTUFF backfires there, because OTHERSTUFF tells you how we do things, particularly in the area of notability. So you swim against the tide, here. I presume you're acting "in good faith" (whatever that means-- I suppose it means you're not being malicious or deliberately harmful to the project, which I concede). However, what you ask is very far outside the norms for WP, and that's worth noting. I'm naturally curious, therefore, as to what your problem is. You don't know the policy, or else you know it, and think it shouldn't apply to stuff you don't like. You can't simply try to delete an article which is well within norms on WP, and then say Whoa, no OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, when those norms are pointed out. As noted, that will backfire on you, because OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a perfectly good argument. Now, at this point, I suppose we should take this to a larger venue, where more editors will weigh in to tell you that you're outside the norms. Meanwhile, you might have a look at WP:RECENTISM and consider that much of what exists on WP is there because it has appeared in news sources in the last 10 years. But are high schools that existed in 1882, but were destroyed then, less notable than high schools destroyed in 1982 or 2002? There is no good reason why they should be. On the contrary, considering the relative lack of media in 1882, the fact that a high school destroyed that year should appear in 2 movies and have a public memorial, is rather good evidence of its notabilty having stood the test of time. S  B Harris 23:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My reasoning has nothing to do with not liking it my friend. My reasoning is based completely on notability. I HAVE read the applicable guidelines and I don't believe this article meets them. Appearing as a minor character in 2 movies doesn't mean someone was notable. That's a very weak argument. You keep ranting about what policies you think I don't know......when it's clear you're not even understanding the policy at issue here. Keep making your baseless allegations and keep attempting to make me the issue, rather than Stilwell's lack of notability. See where that leads. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)