A non-exhaustive list does not imply that the absence of a concept means its automatic inclusion. I agree that assuming that a contentious item is included by its absence is indeed revisionism. Omissions from a non-exhaustive list should be treated conservatively. If additonal reasons are assumed they must not be so wide ranging as to make the original list pointless. If the guidelines "say nothing about taking into account invalid reasons", then we don't take them into account; they simply remain invalid and the VfD proposal is simply void. I also agree with you that adding a provision similar to the one found in the blocking policy would go a long way toward clarifying the problem.
Ec
Phil Sandifer wrote:
No. It is a list of "Problems that may require deletion." Nowhere on any deletion policy page, however, does it say that the list is meant to be exhaustive. Contrast with the blocking policy, which actually says "Blocking should not be used in any other circumstances." The deletion policy does not say that. The deletion guidelines for administrators say nothing about taking into account invalid reasons for listing. Votes for deletion says nothing about invalid reasons for listing.
You are citing policy that does not exist.
If you want to change the rules, more power to you. If you want to engage in an act of Wiki-disobedience, go for it.
But don't pretend the rules back you up on it.
-Snowspinner On Oct 25, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
Not at all, it is a list of valid reasons for deletion. I invite you to add 'things that annoy me, or that I'm not interested in' to it, and try to gain consenus for it. Mark
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
No. I'm arguing that the list you are citing makes NO CLAIMS to be a "list of valid reasons for deletion." The list you cite is a single entry in a lengthy table in deletion policy about which page to send things to. It is less a list of critieria for deletion on VfD and more a list of things that are not speedy deletion criteria, and it's absurdly revisionist to present it as some sort of declaration of the only reasons one can delete an article.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
This is lunacy. You are arguing that, althoughthere
is a list of valid reasons for deletion, and 'non-notablity' has consistently NOT been added toit
because there is no concensus, this does not inany
way indicate that non-notablity is not a reasonfor
deletion? If that's really what you are arguing, then Idon't
think there is anything that will convince you, because you are clearly not interested incommunity
concensus building.