On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:04:31 -0700, Brian J Mingus wrote: > Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant: This phenomenon has entered the > lexicon, and is now well known simply due to its existence in Wikipedia.
I wouldn't say that "Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant" to anything regarding Wikipedia, as this would be tautologically false. However, there are always a whole bunch of often-conflicting policies to be considered (including "Ignore All Rules"), which might pull in different directions. With regard to a deleted article on a phenomenon lacking sufficient reliable citations, but which is starting to spread under that name (due in part to the past existence of the Wikipedia article, and various mirrored copies some of which still persist, and blogs and forum posts referencing it), the "end game" would likely be either that the idea and name spread enough to ultimately produce reliable sources allowing the article to be recreated and kept (at which point the past deletion would be irrelevant, and the article would belong under Wikipedia policy even if its past history included self-reference to Wikipedia itself), or it dies out without achieving notability and the deletion would stand. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
