I suggest "Delete anything that makes you uncomfortable."
On 11/28/06, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Jeff Raymond wrote:
This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as
an organization when we
delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well
know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves
to
trust a source that isn't available in dead
tree form somewhere, we
won't
have the article. Doesn't make a lot of
sense.
This sounds like a classic example of stretching the wrong rule because
the
right rule doesn't exist. It happens a lot in the real legal system, and
usually causes more problems than it solves because once you've stretched
a
rule to cover the case, that becomes a precedent to interpret the rule in
that manner forever. (See: Commerce Clause.)
WP:RS is already broken, especially when it comes to not allowing web and
other self-published sources for non-academic subjects. If you want to
delete
the GNAA article, I suggest either using Ignore All Rules to delete it, or
coming up with a new rule. I suggest a rule something like "A Wikipedia
article may be deleted if merely creating and publicizing a neutral
article
advances the goal of the article's subject." (Of course a full version of
the rule would have to be worded more carefully so you don't delete
articles
about Wikipedia itself.)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l