I think it is clear that the 'stop all deletes for 6 months' concept has zero traction, so we can safely dismiss it now.
James Duffy wrote:
The ''deletionists'' against ''inclusionists'' argument is utterly bogus. It is a case of those who take the idea that wikipedia as an encyclopedia seriously and basic standards below which an article is deleted and those who see wikipedia as some sort of scribblebox where any sort of rubbish, not matter how bad, has a 'right' to be left undisturbed.
People have been upset about the phrase "straw man", but really I think that phrase has to be said when you try to characterize the debate in this way.
I take the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia seriously, and I think that there are basic standards below which an article should be deleted, and I do not see wikipedia as a scribblebox where any sort of rubbish has a 'right' to be left undisturbed.
I don't think anyone participating in this debate currently holds a position even remotely resembling your characterization.
Perhaps you should revisit my position, because it's possible that we're actually in complete agreement.
--Jimbo