On Nov 15, 2007 1:52 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:36:08 -0500, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Just for those who weren't around for the Brandt articles: what Guy is saying here is arrant nonsense. The Brandt article had dozens of good sources stretching back decades. It was deleted out of a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NEVILLECHAMBERLAIN.
So you say. I think it went because the sources were not *about Brandt*.
But I'm game, let's take it to deletion review.
Guy (JzG)
Let's not.
How many featured articles could've been written with the effort that's been extended to Daniel Brandt issues? How many unreferenced articles could've been referenced? No matter how important you think it is to have an article on Brandt, you have to admit its not worth the cost. Unless you think the *principle* of building an encyclopaedia is more important than the *practice* of building an encyclopaedia.
Brandt may be encyclopaedic, I don't know. I don't care. An article on him isn't worth the trouble these days. Put a moratorium on it until one million articles are featured. There's more important stuff to do.
Cheers WilyD