I believe in one of my more recent mails, I quoted [[What Wikipedia is
not]] stating that it is not an exhaustive list by any means.
In any case, Mark, while there is no consensus to delete schools, there
is none to keep them either. Thus, I'd say those who are listing them
are acting within their rights, because schools aren't covered by any
policy; thus we decide them on a case-by-case basis. Democracy is always
unfair to someone, but if there was a real miscarriage of justice, how
come much of the community doesn't care we're deleting oh so important
articles on Hong Kong handbag companies or high schools? (Of course,
there's the issue of whether there was true consensus; in quite a few,
there hasn't been any.)
It so happens that most people on VFD are deletionists. Inclusionists
argue this is unfair as important articles are unfairly deleted.
However, this calls to mind a recent post to this list by, if I'm not
mistaken, Dpbsmith: Most people ARE a "strong neutral" on these; they
don't care whether these articles stay or go. I am of the same opinion.
If they really felt the system is unfair, they'd either pack up and
leave (those who have done this are so few, I doubt their existence) or
complain. So far the only people complaining are those from the extreme
inclusionist camp. Therefore, much of the community couldn't care less
about the fate of school articles. Delete all articles with the word
"green"? If they found out, they'd almost certainly be livid. Delete all
school articles? Lots probably would care (I mean, would you delete an
article on [[Eton]] or one of those posh prep schools?). Delete an
article on, say, [[Allerton High School]]? Most wouldn't and don't care.
The community is fine with the current practice, whether it's in line
with policy or not. Remember, policy and VFD exist to serve the
community. They are the means to an end. Not an end in themselves.
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I am not sure how to respond to this, beyond to note
that you seem to
be demonstrating comparable skill in reading my posts that you are in
reading the deletion policy.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 25, 2004, at 7:08 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
> This is just pants.
> It is clear that these are the reason for deletion,
> not just some 'ideas to use as a springboard for your
> deletion antics'.
> Mark
>
> --- Phil Sandifer <sandifer(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> No. It is a list of "Problems that may require
>> deletion." Nowhere on
>> any deletion policy page, however, does it say that
>> the list is meant
>> to be exhaustive. Contrast with the blocking policy,
>> which actually
>> says "Blocking should not be used in any other
>> circumstances." The
>> deletion policy does not say that. The deletion
>> guidelines for
>> administrators say nothing about taking into account
>> invalid reasons
>> for listing. Votes for deletion says nothing about
>> invalid reasons for
>> listing.
>>
>> You are citing policy that does not exist.
>>
>> If you want to change the rules, more power to you.
>> If you want to
>> engage in an act of Wiki-disobedience, go for it.
>>
>> But don't pretend the rules back you up on it.
>>
>> -Snowspinner
>> On Oct 25, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
>>