On Oct 9, 2006, at 5:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Unilateral deletions are performed hundreds of times a month by
Wikipedia Admins on the basis of their own judgement. Perhaps I
shouldn't find it shocking that some [[troll (Internet)|opportunist]]
found it useful take advantage of Danny's high profile in order to
play out a little bit of performance art.
Since we're apparently dispensing with civility here, get off your
soapbox and engage reality. Any unilateral speedy deletion that went
against three AfDs would be overturned in a heartbeat, and you know
it. Which is as it should be.
It is unfortunate and uncharacteristic to see you
equate the elevation
of experienced judgement and consideration over strict policy
conformance with a lack of deference to the community.
Yes, because it's certainly not like the community has expressed
their opinion on this. Three times.
It appears to me that in this thread we have seen
numerous complaints
about HOW this was carried out masquerade as complaints about what was
done... The reality is that the claim that the deletion was clearly
inappropriate can not be supported by fact: no answer was given to the
point that we lack articles on the numerous similar devices which have
an equal claim of notoriety, nor has our oh so violated community
bothered to even write a section on this oh so notable product in the
article it was later redirected to.
Yes. Because clearly the lack of other articles on a topic is
evidence of something. That is, after all, why we've done away with
article creation - since there are no substantial holes in our coverage.
Perhaps our mere colocation on the project like the
castaways in my
example makes us, by definition, a community. But if that is really
the destiny of the English Wikipedia community then it is a failure by
my standards... and I hope such an end would be a failure by all of
your standards as well.
While I agree with you about the deterioration of the en community,
this is a downright stupid issue to try to hijack into this
consideration. Danny crossed a line that's important on a topic that
is far from a clear case (As evidenced by the fact that three AfDs
passed with a vote to keep). That's bad.
-Phil