> Bearcat is clearly a "deletionist". They are a real problem, and not just > for well-referenced notable articles about art. They are convinced (and > convince each other) that they are making Wikipedia better by removing > articles based not so much on technicalities as on ostentatious ignorance > of Wikipedia's own stated aims and criteria. They are wrong. > > - Rob.
Given our discussion, I determined to give trying to get that article on wikipedia another go. And I find that the article has been undeleted, now, which is good. Though there is no indication who undeleted it in the 'history' section. No history of the deletions at all, actually. I see it has been worked on by several people, now. Including the ding bat deletionist who deleted it three or four times, three of which were for bad reasons. They added internal links and categories. I hadn't checked on it in a couple of months, was getting tired of the stupid deletions for bad reasons. My account had also been deleted. Had to recreate it today. ja http://vispo.com _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
