Ken Arromdee wrote:
Then policy is broken. Straub may be the only person
who proposed spurious
deletions as an experiment, but there are plenty of people who propose
spurious deletions just because they like to propose spurious deletions.
These people don't play fair any more than Straub did, and the lesson that
Straub taught us applies to them too.
Just now, we've had
[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/El_Goonish_Shive]]
where I caught the same person trying to delete two webcomics articles using
the same boilerplate paragraph while obviously not having checked to see if
the claims made in the paragraph are valid for each specific article. Please
don't tell me this person is playing fair.
And now despite the AfD having come down quite strongly on the side of
the webcomic being "notable", I find that there's a great big notability
dispute template at the top of the page.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Goonish_Shive&oldid=110456316>
I also note that there don't appear to be any guidelines provided in the
template for how to go about removing it. So for good measure I'm
throwing in a few external links that were raised in the AfD, despite it
being somewhat awkward shoehorning them into the lead paragraph, and
just plain taking it out.
Articles shouldn't have to have a paragraph beginning with "<subject> is
notable because..." just to survive. It's like we're tailoring our
writing style specifically for an AfD audience - I've actually seen an
article recently with a whole _section_ titled "Notability".