One of the ways of not following procedure is to not take proper
consideration of the evidence, which inevitably leads to a discussion
of what ought to have been proper consideration of the evidence.
On 11/15/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2007.11.15 18:52:34 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> scribbled 0 lines:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:36:08 -0500, Gwern Branwen
<gwern0(a)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)
--
Yes. That's an excellent way of putting it, that you are game. Unfortunately you and
the other deletionists have quite successfully gamed AfD and DRV on this issue, so I would
only be wasting my time and potentially marking myself as a target.
I would note though that DRV was only supposed to be for when deletions did not follow
procedure, but (like the Arbcom not making policy or NOR not supposed to apply to
brain-dead inferences) this has long since fallen by the wayside.
--
gwern
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l