That is exceptionally sound advice for situations like the current one, but I don't think it works as applied in normal times. I don't think we could have no article on, for example, the most recent congressional or parliamentary election even if it's been less than a year since them. Deleting routine articles, or sentences within articles, on grounds of "too new, not a year yet" would certainly soon before more trouble than it was worth.
Which is unfortunate, because any bright-line rule that could have eliminated several of the travails of the past month would have been a Very Good Thing.
Newyorkbrad
On 3/5/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:23:55 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
What's ended up happening is, perhaps both typically and tragically, Wikipedia standard controversy reaction - it's up, it's down, it's back up, it's moved, it's moved again, it's speedy deleted then restored then deleted and up for DR and sideways with sugar on top and can I please have a little more, sir?
All the more reason to go back to my proposal of many reiterations: no article on any event until at least a year after it has happened, to allow time to form a proper historical perspective.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l