Jeff Raymond wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
Well, a common, similar, case is popular culture articles in general, but most of them have a loophole: a movie, book, etc. is itself a source for its own content. Using a pinball machine in a similar way is, of course, original research, but it's also an excellent example of how Ignore All Rules applies to anything, even original research.
[...]The answer, of course, is to adjust the original research policy to allow for such reasonable situations, not simply rely on IAR to muddle through.
Another option is to say that the rules are what we look to when we disagree over whether or not the article is good, or at least adequate. If there is no disagreement, then the article stands. Otherwise, we can start going through the rules, which can be looked at as a catalog of thinking about problems we've had a lot.
Personally, I feel that the rules we have, like the parts on an airplane, should be the minimum number necessary to achieve the goal. Anything else slows us down. Personally, until their's a problem, I'd rather leave WP:OR untouched. I think that Ken's case of rules-lawyer vandals is better solved by judicious application of [[WP:DICK]] rather than adding more rules.
William