I doubt that deleted stuff is libelous. Libelous material is oversighted, not AfD'd which is what the mentioned site is archiving. The mentioned site is not archiving oversighted material. In a message dated 9/5/2008 3:23:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, nawrich(a)gmail.com writes: Your suggestion might make sense if there were some greater value to having broad access to deleted content from Wikipedia. Other sites might find something worth seeing among the morass of deleted articles, but a lot of that "content" is poisonous, libelous, or simply and sometimes harmfully wrong. Why would we need to make it easier for people to see that stuff? For the instances where content of relative value is deleted? Those pages would be sort of a needle in a gigantic pile of manure, wouldn't they, and so wouldn't the negatives clearly outweigh the positives on this one? Nathan _______________________________________________ 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 **************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)