geni wrote:
On 1/12/06, Brock Batsell wikipedia@theskeptik.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2006, at 7:39 PM, geni wrote:
So? I'm free to chose to write about what i want rathen than what other people want to rant about.
I'm not sure I understand your argument. In my opinion, if someone is willing to go to the trouble to list an article on AfD, they should be willing to go to the trouble to improve it to non-deletable standards.
Why? I might know that an article on an area of chemistry is a hoax. Doesn't mean I have the slightest interest in writeing about that bit of chemistry.
The essence of straw man arguments is to choose an example that everyone will agree to, and use that as an excuse to apply the agreed solution for the special case to an expanded environment.
To know that an article about chemistry is a hoax implies that you have enough knowledge of chemistry to recognize a hoax. The person to whom you are responding made no mention of a hoax, and I would suspect that being a hoax is a problem with only a very small portion of the articles in question. Debatable notability is far more often the cause of disputes. The information provided by "non-notable" articles may be trivial or meaningless, but it is not deceptive and completely wrong in the way that a hoax article would be.
Ec