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.