[WikiEN-l] English Wikipedia and the poison of procedural literalism

[Relata Refero]

The problem is Lar is using a novel standard.
* "So notability is not conferred by Gary having been the subject of a
substantial biography in book form, or multiple substantial biographies in
articles."
* "The default outcome failing consensus (we had 3 commenters) should be
delete."

If you read that talkpage, I tell him in the previous section that closing
AfDs like that in direct violation of the stated consensus at WT:BLP is
likely to lead to drama.

I note that the first page of the Google News results that are linked at the
AfD contains the following NYT article prominently, which practically
establishes notability by itself: "Gary Lynch, Defender of Companies, Has
His Critics"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E6DF1038F930A3575AC0A960958260

Collaborative editing projects mean we accept community standards and don't
set our own even if we disagree.

*Shrug*

RR

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lar#Gary_Lynch_deletion
>
> List readers can decide for themselves whether the summary below is
> accurate. Some people aren't cut out for a collaborative editing project -
> and I'm not referring to Lar.
>
> Nathan
>
> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Enchantress of Florence <
> enchantf at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You'd be surprised on just how close to an accurate prediction this
> > was. The article about one of the most prominent lawyers in the USA,
> > who led the civil prosecutions of Boesky and Milken, was deleted after
> > next to no discussion, over the objections of my husband (who pointed
> > out hundreds of news citations verifing both the notability of the
> > individual and the accuracy of the article (nearly ne hundred from the
> > New York Times alone).
> >
> > The administrator who closed the discussion shortly after my husband
> > posted responded by not only dismissing his points (even though no one
> > else actually made a substantive argument), but launched into a
> > gratuitous personal attack on him as deceptive, and falsely
> > characterized the references he provided; then, after my husband gave
> > a restrained (if rather annoyed) response, refused to provide any
> > substantive response, and castigated him for incivility and personal
> > attacks for, among other things. "impugning" the administrator's
> > "reasoning." Then one of the admin's began posting rather rude
> > messages on his talk page.
> >
> > And that about sums thing up for Wikipedian discussion these days.
> > It's uncivil and insulting to point out that someone has made a flawed
> > argument.  It's uncivil and a personal attack to point out that an
> > administrator has made obvious factual errors.
> >
> > I doubt you'll see my husband editing any more. He'd amused himself by
> > actually cleaning the garbage out of various biographies of living
> > people, bu got little out of it but harassment, three increasingly
> > nasty rounds of it.
> >
> > But so it goes. I told him when he began devoting time to Wikipedia
> > that he'd soon enough have the experience made unpleasant by a
> > thin-skinned, poorly informed, opinionated soul who viewed expertise
> > and competence with hostility, and he was.  So it goes.
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>