Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Jan 11, 2009, at 8:56 PM, David Gerard wrote:
...If they don't believe a given item can have reliable sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on their
user pages - then they just won't accept anything.
This has been one of the most toxic things I've seen in a long time, and it's a real problem. In the Threshold debate, I have seen...
I am an avid inclusionist; I am no deletionist. I am a fan of MUDs, having played and written them. I am not a rabid nutter, nor an apologist for same. But I just took a look at [[Threshold (online game)]] for the first time, and y'know, it's marginal.
I bring this up *not* to suggest that the article deserves deletion. But a reasonable person could reasonably conclude, based on reasonably-written notability and sourcing policies, that this article did not quite make the cut. If it's "obviously" "reasonable" for this article to be kept, I suspect our notability and sourcing policies would need a significant amount of relaxing in order to make that conclusion unambiguously clear.
Currently (and aside from any ministrations by rabid nutters), our notability and sourcing policies are rather carefully designed to exclude cruft which obviously, reasonably does not belong in the encyclopedia. If they then "wrongly" suggest deleting this article, what we have is another nice example that what's obvious and reasonable to one person is not to another. And Wikipedia is long since big enough for these differences of opinion to occur.