[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[Ray Saintonge]

Ken Arromdee wrote:

>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.
>
That's a very important point.  Too often other criteria are dragged in 
to strenghthen somebody's case, or because the original complaint wasn't 
working.  If the famous autofellatio picture was a copyvio that should 
have been the first argument without getting into arguments about the 
morality of the picture.  Deletion criteria should be priorized, and the 
ones further down the list should not even be considered when a higher 
ranking one will succeed.  Highly subjective criteria should be well 
down on the list.

Ec