geni wrote:
On 1/19/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
When process must be the basis for a decision it must do the least harm; it should give the best opportunity for a real resolution. In situations where sysops differ process shouold favour keeping in the general case.
So our inclusion standards are set but the most liberal sysops? I really don't think that is an acceptable way of doing things (apart from anything else it makes the issue very personal).
Not exactly, but by those who would want standards to do least harm, or who would like peace in the community. If you want to take that personally that's your problem.
A least harm approach could still favouur deletion in cases where legal problems such as copyvios, libel or privacy are a major factor. When the only issue is notability we are talking abour a highly subjective concept; that explains why it has been such a perennial problem. When undeletion depends almost completely on whether the deletion process was followed correctly rather than on content it's clear that process has become overly dominant.
almost There are cases where deletion has been reversed for being an incorrect descision
That statement seems on a par with those people who say that they have a best friend that's black.
John's argument is like that of any other politicians who like things the way they are. I don't think that Tony is wholly ignoring the process; it's more like civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a perfectly acceptable way of opposing unjust laws.
You just accused Tony of dissruption. And [[WP:POINT]] violations.
Who would be so fucking foolish as to twist praise for civil disobedience into an accusation of disruption.
I would suggest that you rethink any position that results in useing terms such as "unjust laws" to refure to wikipedia policy.
It doesn't take much rethinking to reaffirm what I said. There are whole countries where any suggestion that it can promulgate unjust laws would result in severe consequences. Was it my error to believe that Wikipedia was not one of those countries?
Dealing with a single article should not need to involve a person in a broad unending discussion of general process. If a person feels that a particular corporation is notable, that needs to be discussed on its own merits. Falling back on general process ignores the fact that the financial pages form a larger part of daily newspapers than comic strips.
Not it doesn't. From [[WP:CORP]]:
"The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."
That kind of rule parrotting suggests that you don't spend a hell of a lot of time looking at the financial pages of newspapers.
Ec