On 1/19/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
When process must be the basis for a decision it must
do the least harm;
it should give the best opportunity for a real resolution. In
situations where sysops differ process shouold favour keeping in the
general case.
So our inclusion standards are set but the most liberal sysops? I
really don't think that is an acceptable way of doing things (apart
from anything else it makes the issue very personal).
A least harm approach could still favouur deletion in
cases where legal problems such as copyvios, libel or privacy are a
major factor. When the only issue is notability we are talking abour a
highly subjective concept; that explains why it has been such a
perennial problem. When undeletion depends almost completely on whether
the deletion process was followed correctly rather than on content it's
clear that process has become overly dominant.
almost There are cases where deletion has been reversed for being an
incorrect descision
John's argument is like that of any other
politicians who like things
the way they are. I don't think that Tony is wholly ignoring the
process; it's more like civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a
perfectly acceptable way of opposing unjust laws.
You just accused Tony of dissruption. And [[WP:POINT]] violations.
I would suggest that you rethink any position that results in useing
terms such as "unjust laws" to refure to wikipedia policy.
Dealing with a single article should not need to
involve a person in a
broad unending discussion of general process. If a person feels that a
particular corporation is notable, that needs to be discussed on its own
merits. Falling back on general process ignores the fact that the
financial pages form a larger part of daily newspapers than comic strips.
Ec
Not it doesn't. From [[WP:CORP]]:
"The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple
non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company
itself."
--
geni