[Wikipedia-l] Why oh why resurrect nonarticles????

[The Cunctator]

"Andre Engels" <engels at uni-koblenz.de> wrote:
> Someone got angry with me because I deleted subjects that could become
> articles. So I resurrected them. Now people get angry at me because I did
> that. So, what should I do then? It seems that the only way not to do
> something wrong is to do nothing at all.
>
> Please, either have a SINGLE set of rules that at least has no rules that
> are conflicting, or have no rules at all. This is making me angry and sick
> (literally).

I don't think anyone's angry at you. Don't take any of this personally.
Making a new entry with the same text as the last revision isn't restoring
the
article. Restoring the article means restoring the history.

It is certainly right that, especially with deletions, the only way not to
do something
wrong is to do nothing at all.

Again, the current policy on deletion is based on the old complete
irreversibility
of the act of deletion. Then erasing gibberish from an entry like [[Kate
Hudson]],
which one day will be a good entry, was a better option than deleting the
entry
entirely. Now that deletion is somewhat irreversible, the policy should be
somewhat
changed. Once deletion is made fully reversible, then the policy should be
fully
changed.