On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Todd Allen wrote:
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a
trick.
It's certainly a trick, but it's not a trick in the sense of being impossible
to do. Surely you've heard of the episodes and characters deletion?
I
don't recall many of these being deleted, though a lot were merged.
That's quibbling over terminology. A "merge" which deletes all the info
in the article is in practice a deletion.
I also didn't see many properly referenced
articles in that, most of
those articles were referenced mainly or solely to primary sources.
Works are acceptable as sources for themselves.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-In the context of an article supported by secondary sources-, works
are acceptable sources for themselves. However, a primary source can
never support an entire article on its own, significant independent
and reliable material is required. If no one else has bothered to
comment on the (episode|character|whatever it is), then we're acting
as a first publisher by doing so, and we don't do that.
In that case, if someone tries, it's entirely proper to trim the
unsustainable "article" and redirect or smerge it to a parent article
or list. That is not a deletion. A deletion occurs when an admin
presses the "delete" button. Anything else is an -edit-, many edits
remove. Good editors trim. That is not "quibbling over terminology",
it's a statement that you're saying a specific thing occurred (a
deletion), and that, in the vast majority of cases, it did not. You
can still disagree that the redirects should have occurred (just as
you can disagree that any edit should have been made), but portraying
them as something other than what they were is the classic [[straw
man]] fallacy, and generally the defense for one using that fallacy is
indeed that one who disagrees is quibbling over a minor point. If
you're against what actually happened, by all means argue against it,
but don't misrepresent it to make it look like something other than
what it was.
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.