William Pietri wrote:
Another option is to say that the rules are what we look to when we disagree over whether or not the article is good, or at least adequate. If there is no disagreement, then the article stands. Otherwise, we can start going through the rules, which can be looked at as a catalog of thinking about problems we've had a lot.
And if there is disagreement, the source and argument must be considered. If the argument is "policy X says we can't use this" then it should be dismissed as wikilawyering. If a rational argument is presented explaining why it damages the encyclopedia, then it should of course be given consideration.
(Of course this is shaky ground. Policies exist to improve the encyclopedia, so disregarding one should be done after lots of consideration. But really, that's just repeating [[WP:IAR]], isn't it...)