Ken Arromdee wrote:
Then policy is broken. Straub may be the only person who proposed spurious deletions as an experiment, but there are plenty of people who propose spurious deletions just because they like to propose spurious deletions. These people don't play fair any more than Straub did, and the lesson that Straub taught us applies to them too.
Just now, we've had [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/El_Goonish_Shive]] where I caught the same person trying to delete two webcomics articles using the same boilerplate paragraph while obviously not having checked to see if the claims made in the paragraph are valid for each specific article. Please don't tell me this person is playing fair.
And now despite the AfD having come down quite strongly on the side of the webcomic being "notable", I find that there's a great big notability dispute template at the top of the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Goonish_Shive&oldid=110456316 I also note that there don't appear to be any guidelines provided in the template for how to go about removing it. So for good measure I'm throwing in a few external links that were raised in the AfD, despite it being somewhat awkward shoehorning them into the lead paragraph, and just plain taking it out.
Articles shouldn't have to have a paragraph beginning with "<subject> is notable because..." just to survive. It's like we're tailoring our writing style specifically for an AfD audience - I've actually seen an article recently with a whole _section_ titled "Notability".