On 4/24/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/04/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 2007, at 4:25 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
P.S. Did that Barbara Bauer lawsuit ever actually get to court or was that another empty threat?
I'm not sure. But the article got deleted because an admin decided that "I'm unconvinced by the arguments that the sources are reliable" is equivalent to "there is not a consensus that the sources are reliable," and the usual fun at DRV failed to overturn it.
Not strictly accurate. The admin in question decided that "I'm unconvinced by the arguments that the sources are reliable" is equivalent to "there **is** a consensus that the sources **are not** reliable". By the current rules, no consensus would result in status quo, i.e. a keep.
Since when does one admin's personal opinion constitute concensus? Of course, people who don't know a thing about literature can make a consensus, but I prefer one by people who know what they are talking about. I could jump into a deletion debate on metaphysics, but I'd do preciously little to reach concensus. I'm simply not informed about metaphysics conventions and the like.
The sources in question were deemed not reliable even though they were written by established writers and even though they were on the website of a well-known writer's organization because they happened to talk about Bauer's negative actions and happened to be published in blog form. A whole bunch of comments said the source was unreliable, but failed to give any explanation as to why they believed it to be the case.
Mgm