The belief that certain verifiable, neutral, or potentially verifiable and neutral, articles must be deleted from wikipedia is one of the most seductive, most destructive siren calls on Wikipedia. All that stands in its way is the principle that we actually need a concrete reason to delete something: if in doubt, don't delete.
There is a move, mainly by a single editor but with some apparent support, to remove this pivotal phrase from our deletion policy, or to sideline it as a historical curiosity.
Please let us keep this. We don't delete stuff unless we have a bloody good reason to do so. Otherwise what's the point?
I point out that the editor in question is subject to an arbcom case right now regarding deletion and the railroading of "policy" to "win" debates. I think this incident would prove valuable evidence in that case.
-Phil
On Dec 4, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
The belief that certain verifiable, neutral, or potentially verifiable and neutral, articles must be deleted from wikipedia is one of the most seductive, most destructive siren calls on Wikipedia. All that stands in its way is the principle that we actually need a concrete reason to delete something: if in doubt, don't delete.
There is a move, mainly by a single editor but with some apparent support, to remove this pivotal phrase from our deletion policy, or to sideline it as a historical curiosity.
Please let us keep this. We don't delete stuff unless we have a bloody good reason to do so. Otherwise what's the point? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Snowspinner wrote:
On Dec 4, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
The belief that certain verifiable, neutral, or potentially verifiable and neutral, articles must be deleted from wikipedia is one of the most seductive, most destructive siren calls on Wikipedia. All that stands in its way is the principle that we actually need a concrete reason to delete something: if in doubt, don't delete.
There is a move, mainly by a single editor but with some apparent support, to remove this pivotal phrase from our deletion policy, or to sideline it as a historical curiosity.
Please let us keep this. We don't delete stuff unless we have a bloody good reason to do so. Otherwise what's the point?
I point out that the editor in question is subject to an arbcom case right now regarding deletion and the railroading of "policy" to "win" debates. I think this incident would prove valuable evidence in that case.
I admit I'm too busy trying to actually work on Wikipedia materials to know anything about this case, but I feel confident in saying that whatever cause Tony has been hauled before the ArbCom over is irrelevant to his point here -- which is to argue that when in doubt, don't delete.
I say this as someone who disagrees on many points with him: he's an inclusionist, I'm an exclusionist. However, when I nominate an article for deletion, I find myself writing the case as if I'm speaking to Tony, as if to convince him alone; & so far, not one of my nominations for deletion have failed.* And I noticed that he closed one of these debates with the conclusion of _delete_.
Amazing what one can learn if one listens in good faith to another Wikipedian.
Geoff
* Although I've since discovered I was wrong about one of them; I hope no one minds if I eventually recreate the article -- this time with citations.
On 12/5/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Snowspinner wrote:
I point out that the editor in question is subject to an arbcom case right now regarding deletion and the railroading of "policy" to "win" debates. I think this incident would prove valuable evidence in that case.
I admit I'm too busy trying to actually work on Wikipedia materials to know anything about this case, but I feel confident in saying that whatever cause Tony has been hauled before the ArbCom over is irrelevant to his point here -- which is to argue that when in doubt, don't delete.
You've misread Phil's words. He is not referring to mem, and I haven't been "hauled up before arcom".
On Dec 5, 2005, at 4:59 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
You've misread Phil's words. He is not referring to mem, and I haven't been "hauled up before arcom".
Which still shocks me. ;)
But yeah - Tony's fine - it's the person removing the phrase that is already in front of the arbcom on deletion issues.
-Phil
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 12/5/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Snowspinner wrote:
I point out that the editor in question is subject to an arbcom case right now regarding deletion and the railroading of "policy" to "win" debates. I think this incident would prove valuable evidence in that case.
I admit I'm too busy trying to actually work on Wikipedia materials to know anything about this case, but I feel confident in saying that whatever cause Tony has been hauled before the ArbCom over is irrelevant to his point here -- which is to argue that when in doubt, don't delete.
You've misread Phil's words. He is not referring to mem, and I haven't been "hauled up before arcom".
I realize that now. And that is one reason I don't take as large of a role in Wikipedia as I ought to: most of the time I know I don't have enough information to act on, & the remainder of the time I don't know even that.
My apologies to all involved.
Geoff
Tony Sidaway wrote:
There is a move, mainly by a single editor but with some apparent support, to remove this pivotal phrase from our deletion policy, or to sideline it as a historical curiosity.
That being Aaron Brenneman, who has tried a number of times to quietly remove it, and also happens to be up before the AC at present for his deletions-related activities.
- d.