A non-exhaustive list does not imply that the absence of a concept means
its automatic inclusion. I agree that assuming that a contentious item
is included by its absence is indeed revisionism. Omissions from a
non-exhaustive list should be treated conservatively. If additonal
reasons are assumed they must not be so wide ranging as to make the
original list pointless. If the guidelines "say nothing about taking
into account invalid reasons", then we don't take them into account;
they simply remain invalid and the VfD proposal is simply void. I also
agree with you that adding a provision similar to the one found in the
blocking policy would go a long way toward clarifying the problem.
Ec
Phil Sandifer wrote:
No. It is a list of "Problems that may require
deletion." Nowhere on
any deletion policy page, however, does it say that the list is meant
to be exhaustive. Contrast with the blocking policy, which actually
says "Blocking should not be used in any other circumstances." The
deletion policy does not say that. The deletion guidelines for
administrators say nothing about taking into account invalid reasons
for listing. Votes for deletion says nothing about invalid reasons for
listing.
You are citing policy that does not exist.
If you want to change the rules, more power to you. If you want to
engage in an act of Wiki-disobedience, go for it.
But don't pretend the rules back you up on it.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 25, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
> Not at all, it is a list of valid reasons for
> deletion. I invite you to add 'things that annoy me,
> or that I'm not interested in' to it, and try to gain
> consenus for it.
> Mark
>
> --- Phil Sandifer <sandifer(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> No. I'm arguing that the list you are citing makes
>> NO CLAIMS to be a
>> "list of valid reasons for deletion." The list you
>> cite is a single
>> entry in a lengthy table in deletion policy about
>> which page to send
>> things to. It is less a list of critieria for
>> deletion on VfD and more
>> a list of things that are not speedy deletion
>> criteria, and it's
>> absurdly revisionist to present it as some sort of
>> declaration of the
>> only reasons one can delete an article.
>>
>> -Snowspinner
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
>>
>>> This is lunacy. You are arguing that, althoughthere
>>
>>> is a list of valid reasons for deletion, and
>>> 'non-notablity' has consistently NOT been added toit
>>
>>> because there is no concensus, this does not inany
>>
>>> way indicate that non-notablity is not a reasonfor
>>
>>> deletion?
>>> If that's really what you are arguing, then Idon't
>>
>>> think there is anything that will convince you,
>>> because you are clearly not interested incommunity
>>
>>> concensus building.
>>