On 4/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:06:45 -0400, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I think we're leaning too far toward the "shoot first" mentality, honestly, and when it results in a complete deletion, that's a problem. Remove possibly libellious commentary? Okay. Make no effort on sourcing while doing it? Not as comfortable. Delete the article entirely instead of stubbing it? Certainly not okay in my mind.
In this case the stub was a single sentence which included a false claim. So that didn't work. And that was done by a very good editor, too, so it's not his fault, the problem is that the source for the claim, which is not a good one, is flatly contradicted by the subject. In a conflict between a poor source and a flat denial by the subject, the subject wins.
I suppose one alternative is to delete the versions with offending content (presumably that would be all of them) and recreate the article as a redirect. It doesn't prevent someone from recreating the offending content, but neither does deletion.