[WikiEN-l] Verifiability

[John Lee]

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:42:09 -0700, you wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Although I may have a slightly more liberal attitude toward NOR; I would 
>>still view NPOV as having equally high sources.  To me citing sources is 
>>implicit in verifiability.
>>    
>>
>
>You'd have thought so.  But we still could not achieve consensus to
>delete this unsourced monstrosity:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cleveland_steamer_%28second_nomination%29
>
>See how the deleters cited policy while the keepers simply asserted
>"it is true" or that deleting it would be "censorship"?  If it is
>true, surely there must be ''some'' reliable source, but none has been
>presented even after two AfDs - a process which often results in
>speedy resolution of that particular problem.
>
>So once again we have kept by default an article which is completely
>unverified, and given the lack of verifying evidence presented at two
>AfDs almost certainly unverifiable.
>
>Perhaps like Donkey Punch it will hang around until it achieves some
>kind of tenuous reality - sexcruft seems to be one area where
>protologisms are allowed on Wikipedia.
> 
>Guy (JzG)
>  
>
Just a sidenote, but I would have closed that as a delete. Most of the 
keep "votes" came from anons or new editors, so that combined with the 
fact that none of them cited policy as a reason to keep (while the 
deleters did) should have been enough to discount their votes (assuming 
we are pretending WP:IS a democracy). The article as it stands right now 
*really* tempts me to speedy it right away, but fortunately I've learnt 
not to meddle with the community's will, which apparently choose and 
picks policy as it likes (incidentally, so do admins -- so we're all 
guilty here). Yeah. Just rambling here. :p

John