On 12/28/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
If we'd blocked the user and speedy-deleted the article when it was created, I can guarantee you it'd have been recreated in good faith by a community member later that day. Sometimes, kneejerk deletion reactions are somewhat futile.
Indeed. I'll use the same saying I used recently when discussing whether all contributions of banned users should be deleted, because it applies equally here: we shouldn't cut off our noses just to spite our faces.
To illustrate what I mean, here's the article as it stood when the account "User:Virgin United" started it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&oldid=96734604
And here it is, 50-something edits later at the time of this mail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&oldid=96916255
I checked it with History Flow and the only text remaining from the original version is the external link to their official site. The rest has been compiled by 23 other Wikipedians plus a couple of anonymous users, who have made between 1 and 10 edits each.
There is nothing wrong with the article as it stands. The question of whether we should have an article at all (or whether it should be merged somewhere else, etc) is not so urgent that we need decide it right at this very minute. Everyone come back in a couple of days and we can discuss that question then.