On 1/31/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
It was closed with the support of Jimbo, on that exact grounds, so yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say that it has been consistently kept on those grounds.
Jimbo's comments are nowhere on any of the three deletion discussion pages. Not everyone agreed with him or you (heck, a lot of people aren't even agreeing with *me* in the fourth discussion ;-) ). There are a lot of arguments floating around on each of them, including a number of people arguing for the article to be kept on grounds of internet history/fame or the like. Don't you think it's at least possible that there are other interpretations of the results?
Let me be blunter: if this is standard for how the community
considers deletion (and I've seen precious little evidence of late that it's not), the community can no longer be trusted with this function.
If the community isn't to be trusted with making decisions on deletion, how should deletion be handled? There are things that clearly should be deleted (which tend to speedied, prodded, or die nearly unanimously in AfD), things that clearly should be kept (Ron's example above shows what happens with something that clear), and things that aren't precisely clear. How should the third category be dealt with?
-- Jonel