Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Ultimately, I think we should wait until we have some external sources *for the importance of the case*. As it stands, it looks to me as if only Langan, the Mega Society pushers and a few Wikipedia editors actually give a damn about it. And that says "undue weight" to me.
Sure, it's undue weight.
Undue weight isn't original research, just like poor notability isn't original research. Call it what it is.
This actually matters. Once we start stretching the definition of original research to include things that aren't, that stretched definition is going to stay around, be used in precedents, etc. It's a very bad idea to misclassify the reason for deleting something, even if it really does deserve deletion.
That's a very important point. Too often other criteria are dragged in to strenghthen somebody's case, or because the original complaint wasn't working. If the famous autofellatio picture was a copyvio that should have been the first argument without getting into arguments about the morality of the picture. Deletion criteria should be priorized, and the ones further down the list should not even be considered when a higher ranking one will succeed. Highly subjective criteria should be well down on the list.
Ec