Well, OK, let me clarify. They say nothing about the invalidity of
reasons at all.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 26, 2004, at 7:26 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
A non-exhaustive list does not imply that the absence
of a concept
means its automatic inclusion. I agree that assuming that a
contentious item is included by its absence is indeed revisionism.
Omissions from a non-exhaustive list should be treated conservatively.
If additonal reasons are assumed they must not be so wide ranging as
to make the original list pointless. If the guidelines "say nothing
about taking into account invalid reasons", then we don't take them
into account; they simply remain invalid and the VfD proposal is
simply void. I also agree with you that adding a provision similar to
the one found in the blocking policy would go a long way toward
clarifying the problem.
Ec
Phil Sandifer 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:
> Not at all, it is a list of valid reasons for
> deletion. I invite you to add 'things that annoy me,
> or that I'm not interested in' to it, and try to gain
> consenus for it.
> Mark
>
> --- Phil Sandifer <sandifer(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> No. I'm arguing that the list you are citing makes
>> NO CLAIMS to be a
>> "list of valid reasons for deletion." The list you
>> cite is a single
>> entry in a lengthy table in deletion policy about
>> which page to send
>> things to. It is less a list of critieria for
>> deletion on VfD and more
>> a list of things that are not speedy deletion
>> criteria, and it's
>> absurdly revisionist to present it as some sort of
>> declaration of the
>> only reasons one can delete an article.
>>
>> -Snowspinner
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
>>
>>> This is lunacy. You are arguing that, althoughthere
>>
>>> is a list of valid reasons for deletion, and
>>> 'non-notablity' has consistently NOT been added toit
>>
>>> because there is no concensus, this does not inany
>>
>>> way indicate that non-notablity is not a reasonfor
>>
>>> deletion?
>>> If that's really what you are arguing, then Idon't
>>
>>> think there is anything that will convince you,
>>> because you are clearly not interested incommunity
>>
>>> concensus building.
>>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l