On 3/21/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
We don't have to include every view merely because we can verify that someone, somewhere holds that view. Even if policy supports that (and
I
strongly suspect it doesn't; see "undue weight"), that would be damaging
the
article for the sake of process. Which is something we don't do on Wikipedia.
The thing is that the article is about Paul Smith's organisation, named "Safe Speed",
Looking at this article, I think the main problem is that it is /not/ about the organization, but about the organization's arguments. The whole "Safe Speed's Claims" and "Opposition and Criticism" examples could be summarized in a few sentences.
Imagine if someone wrote up a solitary article with all that content in it. It would be AFD'ed in a flash, and rightly so. But by grandfathering it into an article that is nominally about something else, they've succeeded in getting a soapbox for advocacy. Kill it with fire.
Ryan