On 3/21/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/21/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We don't have to include every view merely
because we can verify that
someone, somewhere holds that view. Even if policy supports that (and
I
strongly suspect it doesn't; see "undue
weight"), that would be damaging
the
article for the sake of process. Which is
something we don't do on
Wikipedia.
The thing is that the article is about Paul Smith's organisation,
named "Safe Speed",
Looking at this article, I think the main problem is that it is /not/ about
the organization, but about the organization's arguments. The whole "Safe
Speed's Claims" and "Opposition and Criticism" examples could be
summarized
in a few sentences.
Imagine if someone wrote up a solitary article with all that content in it.
It would be AFD'ed in a flash, and rightly so. But by grandfathering it into
an article that is nominally about something else, they've succeeded in
getting a soapbox for advocacy. Kill it with fire.
Ryan