On 12/28/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If we'd blocked the user and speedy-deleted the article when it was
created, I can guarantee you it'd have been recreated in good faith by
a community member later that day. Sometimes, kneejerk deletion
reactions are somewhat futile.
Indeed. I'll use the same saying I used recently when discussing
whether all contributions of banned users should be deleted, because
it applies equally here: we shouldn't cut off our noses just to spite
our faces.
To illustrate what I mean, here's the article as it stood when the
account "User:Virgin United" started it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&oldid=96734604
And here it is, 50-something edits later at the time of this mail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&oldid=96916255
I checked it with History Flow and the only text remaining from the
original version is the external link to their official site. The rest
has been compiled by 23 other Wikipedians plus a couple of anonymous
users, who have made between 1 and 10 edits each.
There is nothing wrong with the article as it stands. The question of
whether we should have an article at all (or whether it should be
merged somewhere else, etc) is not so urgent that we need decide it
right at this very minute. Everyone come back in a couple of days and
we can discuss that question then.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com