On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Ryan Delaney wrote:
Actually, it's the other way around. Deliberately
writing a bad article that
should be deleted, but doesn't technically fit the CSD due to some loophole,
sounds like the definition of disruption to make a point. I'd have to see a
test case to say that for sure.
But CSD *isn't for deleting everything that should be deleted*. So the
fact that the article doesn't fit CSD but should be deleted anyway isn't
a loophole. Plenty of things which should be deleted don't fit CSD.