[WikiEN-l] [[Daniel Brandt]] is gone again

[Ray Saintonge]

Bryan Derksen wrote:

>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>  
>
>>On 6/14/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I'm hopeful.  Once we've seen the back of that article, I'll begin to
>>>>consider that Wikipedia has come of age.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Seems more like giving up on the Wikipedia process entirely. What else
>>>will we decide we "can't be trusted" to write articles about next? And
>>>will that decision be made in the same haphazard back-channel way this
>>>one is being made in?
>>>      
>>>
>>It was an open discussion followed by almost certainly the most
>>comprehensively documented close we have ever seen.  You can see the
>>comments the closer made as he considered each point.  The result is
>>on deletion review but seems to be holding up very well indeed.
>>    
>>
>What I'm talking about here is not just the AfD result on its own, but
>the rush to go _beyond_ it and turn the "merge" result into an outright
>deletion.
>
>Why is it that seven other Wikipedias are apparently "trustworthy"
>enough to have articles about Daniel Brandt but the English Wikipedia
>can't have anything more than a redirect, if that? What if we were to
>translate one of those other articles and put it here on en?
>
It strikes me that the recurrence of debates about Brandt is more than 
anything reflective of an obsessive mania to censor anything about the 
man.  To suggest that no one can be trusted to write a neutral article, 
and that that fact alone is enough reason not to have an article at all 
is a gross insult to all those of us who try to maintain a balanced 
approach to what we do, whether on not we have participated in editing 
that and related articles.

There are clearly some people who want the article to remain, and I 
seriously doubt that they are all teenies and trekkies.  Nor can I 
believe that all those who support the article are out to fill it with 
half-truths, or other questionable material   It's about time that the 
obsessives began to accept that there are other constructive 
contributors than themselves.

Ec