On 10/3/05, Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net wrote:
The thing is - let's face it - we have all the bases covered. We already have articles on more-or-less all the topics you would expect in a traditional encyclopedia.
Actually, no, but that's by-the-by. Why this insistence on reference to paper encyclopedias? Why is it important to cripple Wikipedia by removing content? I say "removing content" because it looks to me that in violating deletion policy through the insistence on deleting articles that could be merged, the intention of some parties is to destroy certain wikipedia content, to declare it, by edict of four or five editors who happened to be around during a debate, beyond the reach of Wikipedia.
A discussion is now taking place on Wikipedia Votes for undeletion. An article about a developing games forum website was deleted a few months ago on the grounds that it was "crystal ball gazing". Now the website is up and running and someone asks for the article, with some 40 edits by to be deleted. People are sitting on VFU right now and seriouslyarguing that it should be kept deleted because "at the time, the VfD discussion was valid.
That beggars belief.