[WikiEN-l] an ED article (was Featured Editors?)

[Wily D]

On Nov 15, 2007 1:52 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:36:08 -0500, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Just for those who weren't around for the Brandt articles: what Guy is saying here is arrant nonsense. The Brandt article had dozens of good sources stretching back decades. It was deleted out of a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NEVILLECHAMBERLAIN.
>
> So you say.  I think it went because the sources were not *about
> Brandt*.
>
> But I'm game, let's take it to deletion review.
>
>
> Guy (JzG)

Let's not.

How many featured articles could've been written with the effort
that's been extended to Daniel Brandt issues?  How many unreferenced
articles could've been referenced?  No matter how important you think
it is to have an article on Brandt, you have to admit its not worth
the cost.  Unless you think the *principle* of building an
encyclopaedia is more important than the *practice* of building an
encyclopaedia.

Brandt may be encyclopaedic, I don't know.  I don't care.  An article
on him isn't worth the trouble these days.  Put a moratorium on it
until one million articles are featured.  There's more important stuff
to do.

Cheers
WilyD