>It was a "tactical" deletion request. I find that to be a pretty silly
>maneuver, personally, particularly as the nominators never do a very good job
>>as devil's advocate. If jbmurray didn't think the article should be deleted,
>he should not have wasted his own time and that of other volunteers >by
>nominating it.
I consider this to be yet another example that would justify an essay I’ve
always thought of writing, “The real world is not Wikipedia”, a thought first
kicked off by the nomination for this AfD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Streisand_effect_%282nd_nomination%29.
in which the nominator (who left the project a long time ago) decided
Wikipedia policy should apply to the documents we accept as reliable sources
(as opposed to the IP on the talk page, who seems to have felt the article
should have gone beyond the notability policy and tried to explain why scholars
would have found Ms. Imlay notable enough to write about.
This happened to another article I contributed to that reached FA status, as
well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_York_State_Route_32/Archive_1#Question
It really came down to “yes, it’s notable, but it shouldn’t be”.
Daniel Case
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
