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