[WikiEN-l] Re: Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 10

Wed Oct 5 15:14:22 UTC 2005

On 10/5/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> * valid AfD. If you have significant new information, create a new
> article.
> **This ignoring the already-established problem that the article has been
> protected on a blank because of vandalism...

I decided to take this advice, which I thought was fair comment, and create
a new article. This was speedied several times by people who repeatedly
claimed falsely that the article, the product of my own mind, was a
recreation. I afd'd it and it looked like it was headed for deletion (fair
enough) but then someone prematurely closed the AfD and speedied it. I gave
up.

Finally someone asked for history undeletion so I performed this task (which
doesn't require a VFU debate). I haven't checked today, but I wouldn't put
it past some over-zealous sysop to delete even that.

It's getting beyond a joke.

> One interesting argument on the original VFD was that no article about a
> website can be verified through a link to the website itself. The specific
> datum quoted was "number of users".

Well obviously the website can be verified--just open telnet to port 80 and
send a http head command, and if you get a valid http response there's a
website.

The estimated number of users can be attributed, so that the reader knows
that it is self-reported. Or (my preference) it can be omitted as not really
relevant.

I do find a lot of these "keep deleted" arguments frustratingly ad hoc.