Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appeal to emotion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #3. I appreciate that the nominator is new to AfD, but formatting issues are most certainly not a valid reason for deletion, and even as formatting issues go, these are pretty minor. I strongly recommend that the user better familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Deletion policy and continue to contribute to AfDs in order to gain experience in the area. TimothyJosephWood 19:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to emotion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This page should be deleted because of the reasons given in the template message on the page.There are "WP:MOS issues throughout, overquoting, style of writing, wikilinking, curly quotes, citation cleanup ... and more." No major fixes have been done recently, this template message has been on here for two years, and this article should be deleted under the terms of WP:MOS. TheGoldenParadox (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We should perhaps request other editors for help in getting the article in lines with MOS. In my opinion, the faults within the article aren't egregious enough for this to be nominated for deletion. Anyway, I don't believe non-adherence to MOS could be a proper deletion reason in Afds. Lourdes 04:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – is this a joke? Since when has using curly quotes been a reason for deletion? Please read WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Laurdecl ^talk 06:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.