One of the ways of not following procedure is to not take proper consideration of the evidence, which inevitably leads to a discussion of what ought to have been proper consideration of the evidence.
On 11/15/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2007.11.15 18:52:34 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net scribbled 0 lines:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:36:08 -0500, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Just for those who weren't around for the Brandt articles: what Guy is saying here is arrant nonsense. The Brandt article had dozens of good sources stretching back decades. It was deleted out of a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NEVILLECHAMBERLAIN.
So you say. I think it went because the sources were not *about Brandt*.
But I'm game, let's take it to deletion review.
Guy (JzG)
Yes. That's an excellent way of putting it, that you are game. Unfortunately you and the other deletionists have quite successfully gamed AfD and DRV on this issue, so I would only be wasting my time and potentially marking myself as a target.
I would note though that DRV was only supposed to be for when deletions did not follow procedure, but (like the Arbcom not making policy or NOR not supposed to apply to brain-dead inferences) this has long since fallen by the wayside.
-- gwern
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l