On 7/23/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
Unfortunately, there are a number of different
possible logical
interpretations of what an AfD deletion outcome means, and no
shortage of anal-retentive wiki{judge|lawyer|executioner}s determined
to enforce any and all of them in the most draconian possible way.
The two main conflicting interpretations are:
1) That a particular bunch of text should be deleted from Wikipedia
and not allowed to resurface anywhere in the site;
I think this is a bad one. "bad text" is a problem that can be dealt
with easily, and locally, without dragging it through AfD.
2) That a particular article title should be removed, and not allowed
to have any article at that title for any reason or with any content;
That's the literal interpretation of "this subject is annappropriate
for a Wikipedia article". Either because it's too trivial, or just
wrong (why George Bush sucks...)
ever be allowed to come back in any context. Thus,
when an article
on a traffic circle in New Jersey was deleted as unworthy of an
article in its own right, some admins took it onto themselves to
remove any text mentioning it in other articles such as the one on
the township it was in, on the basis of "enforcing the AfD outcome."
That's not a job for admins. They really should stick to carrying out
the parts of a decision that can't be carried out by non-admins.
And, when an article on an unreleased independent film
was deleted,
admins made a stand for a while not only against recreation of the
article on the film a few months later when it had been released and
won a film-festival award, but even against creation of an article on
an urelated album that happened to have the same name.
Heh.
Steve