[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[Ken Arromdee]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> Ultimately, I think we should wait until we have some external sources
> *for the importance of the case*.  As it stands, it looks to me as if
> only Langan, the Mega Society pushers and a few Wikipedia editors
> actually give a damn about it.  And that says "undue weight" to me.

Sure, it's undue weight.

Undue weight isn't original research, just like poor notability isn't original
research.  Call it what it is.

This actually matters.  Once we start stretching the definition of original
research to include things that aren't, that stretched definition is going
to stay around, be used in precedents, etc.  It's a very bad idea to
misclassify the reason for deleting something, even if it really does deserve
deletion.