Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Who's Your Step Daddy


 * Comment I would like some input here from non canvassed editors. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment none of the editors posting here have been 'canvassed' so all opinions are valid. Dan arndt (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * they have been clearly selectively notified by you and share similar keep tendencies. This is classical canvassing and I've seen editors blocked for this before. Your edit summary also indicates you want to resort to personal attacks. I've kept the diff for records. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * what do you mean by canvassed? I'm watching this page & this page & others. and on Aus music page I've clearly listed the topics I'm predominantly interested in (& my user page)(though I've worked on a few others also). personally I'd prefer if people marking AfD did more than a single gnews search, because it doesn't seem very accurate for these older articles. ie the notices over past couple of weeks, I've done a basic Trove search (this searches many libraries, news articles, websites, music archives), google search -mp3 -download (sometimes with 'review') & some of the sites listed on my user page, & it's finding RS results - please note note WP:SEP & the Q. Why don't you go and look for sources? point on WP:MUSTBESOURCES as mentioned previously. it is not fair to make others do your work. it would be much better to help improve the articles first, then if they're not suitable mark for deletion. clearly some should be deleted, but others shouldn't Kathodonnell (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the onus is on those wanting to keep to find sources. Which I acknowledge you have tried. Dan arndt selectively notified you which is clear canvassing remember this? [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKathodonnell&action=historysubmit&diff=433361040&oldid=433321458] LibStar (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw the note on my talk page, but I'd also seen the afd notice via the Aus music watch page. I was flying from bangkok -> sydney & sleeping/working afterwards, so didn't have time to search for articles until I returned late last week. I didn't interpret @Dan arndt's message as canvassing - it was more a heads up to try work on the article & find some references (this is mostly what I started doing since being on WP as I like researching - only recently have I started editing some of the text too). if I didn't find anything or didn't think it should be here I wouldn't vote keep for it. I know we're not meant to get personal here, but it's actually insulting of you to suggest that my vote could be influenced, especially after the work/time I've put in to search for references - there's other articles I'd rather be working on, but last few weeks all these afds have taken up most of my WP time. and the comment above from @Stevezimmy is how I understood it also - I sometimes have a tendency to over-reference (search back in some of the articles I've worked on & comments on my talk page. I'm working on improving this). in any case, I'd already researched/voted by the time I read that reply. I don't know these editors but I've seen their great work on some of the articles I've come across. admins/whoever are free to ask me on my talk page if you need more info Kathodonnell (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * apologies Kath it is not a critism of you. unlike the others you have made a genuine effort to find sources. if you would have found this AfD anyway i suggest that Dan refrain from selectively notifying you which gives the impression of canvassing. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks @LibStar. to be fair, I think @Dan arndt has found some references too and improved the article since the Afd - I can see it in the article history. he probably wouldn't have known I had subscribed to the watch page, as I'd only asked how to do this a week or two before and I don't think I replied and said done/thanks afterwards. I think perhaps this has all gone a little out of control. hopefully we can get back to improving the articles now. cheers :) Kathodonnell (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment if you had bothered to check you would see that I have worked on improving the article, like Kathodonnell, to ensure that it is referenced (identifying its notability). If LibStar spent more time time working with editors rather than providing personal criticisms of everyone who has a differing view then it would be of benefit to all involved in these debates. Dan arndt (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * you have worked on the article subsequent to arguing keep or at least you should have demonstrated sources in your keep vote. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you check the edit history you will see I made changes to the article before the AfD notice was lodged. I have also made improvements after the notice as well. The reason for the 'gap' in my contributions was that I was away overseas on holiday (before you overactive mind reaches the wrong conclusion I was in a different part of the world to Kathodonnell) and wasn't in a position to make any edits. I did however want my views stated before I left with the intention to work on the article on my return (which I have done). I am however feeling frustrated that you seem to insist that I and other editors have to justify our every action in these AfD debates. Dan arndt (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * fair enough, but no need to follow me around. there's plenty of AfD topics to vote on... LibStar (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)