On 14 April 2013 11:59, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 April 2013 11:44, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Indeed. As is characteristic of false
dichotomies.
I was once asked by a prominent journalist where I stood on this. I
replied that it was a boring question. And that once I had defined
myself as deletionist on science topics, where we don't want cruft and
pseudo, and inclusionist on humanities topics, where we really cannot
always know what the academics will turn to next.
When people from TV come asking for a (quote) "passionate deletionist" -
http://www.mail-archive.com/wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg01448.html
- we're well past the time of being able to talk sensibly in such polar terms.
Mmm, I remember that mail and whom I suggested ...
I'm still quite deletionist on BLPs because of examples where our
"rules" are too easy to game. I'm certainly not an anti-stub
deletionist because that I see as destructive of future growth, and I
improve many stubs these days. If "passionate" means "nuance-free",
which is a fair cop much of the time, then I agree with you.
Charles