-the basic argument was lack of sufficiently reliable sources, and,
looking at the deleted article, I can see that it was a reasonable basis
for deletion. The best way to proceed would be to *first" try to find
some good sources and then go to WP:Deletion Review.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:04:31 -0700, Brian J Mingus
wrote:
Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant: This
phenomenon has entered the
lexicon, and is now well known simply due to its existence in Wikipedia.
I wouldn't say that "Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant" to anything
regarding Wikipedia, as this would be tautologically false. However,
there are always a whole bunch of often-conflicting policies to be
considered (including "Ignore All Rules"), which might pull in
different directions. With regard to a deleted article on a
phenomenon lacking sufficient reliable citations, but which is
starting to spread under that name (due in part to the past existence
of the Wikipedia article, and various mirrored copies some of which
still persist, and blogs and forum posts referencing it), the "end
game" would likely be either that the idea and name spread enough to
ultimately produce reliable sources allowing the article to be
recreated and kept (at which point the past deletion would be
irrelevant, and the article would belong under Wikipedia policy even
if its past history included self-reference to Wikipedia itself), or
it dies out without achieving notability and the deletion would
stand.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site:
http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips:
http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
http://domains.dan.info/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l