Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination)

What were those two arguments for deletion?
First of all, let me say that I don't disagree with the decision to close this as "Keep". Certainly there was no consensus to delete.

But I am baffled by the closing admins statement: ''The foundation of the push to delete this article is based primarily on two arguments: (1) it is an old article. . . and (2) it cannot be salvaged to meet Wikipedia’s editorial standards. Neither argument has the strength to support a call for deletion.''

Were those the arguments raised? Certainly there was mention of the age of the article, but did anyone ever argue that that was a reason for deleting this? In fact, why would anyone ever suggest deleting any article because of its age? Hey, this article dates from 2001. Any chance its age puts it at risk? Of course not. That would be a silly argument, and if it's in this AfD, I missed it (which is certainly possible, I'm as fallible as they come).

And the second "argument", that it cannot be salvaged to meet Wikipedia's standards? Yeah, I suppose you could boil the arguments down to that, but isn't that true of every AfD, that the nominator believes that the article is unsalvagable? I'm sorry, but I thought that the arguments here were along the lines of WP:OR, WP:NOT, and others. Hey, by no means am I saying that those arguments were irrefutably made. I just would like to see them addressed.

I would like to thank the closing admin for at least providing an explanation; sometimes I see no explanation at all. But I am trying to learn my way around here, and I just found this particular rationale as confusing as any I've ever seen. Un sch  ool  04:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think those two were meant to be taken in combination - that is, some people favour the deletion of articles which have remained in a poor state for a long period of time. The thinking is, "if it hasn't been cleaned up by now, it never will." I'm not making the claim that anyone was explicitly advancing that argument, though. I think the closing argument focused on just one aspect here and didn't fully address the arguments of either side. Dcoetzee 05:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, nobody made an "it's old, delete" argument. The references to its age in the nomination were a reference to the fact that it was written in very early days when Wikipedia was a spin-off of a porno site and operated to entirely different standards, and the bulk of the article is not compliant with current standards (WP:V, WP:IINFO, WP:OR etc). – iride  scent  12:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I better understand now. I'm glad I asked. Un sch  ool  18:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)