The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef and / or neoligism. -- Ianb 10:10, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps I can quote to you this paragraph from WP:POINT (I don't mean to imply that you are intent on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, just that this particular policy is explained well there):
* Implementation of deletion policy is not consistently applied to marginally suitable articles. The vote-based nature of the deletion process results in decisions affected by the mix of people following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion during any given week. Consequently, some articles that are deleted are arguably more meritorious than others that have been kept. Since marginally useful articles are indeed of marginal value, this doesn't create a practical problem.
You are quite welcome to nominate Wingnut for deletion if you think it unencyclopaedic. David | Talk 10:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
'
The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef and / or neoligism. -- Ianb 10:10, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps I can quote to you this paragraph from WP:POINT (I don't mean to imply that you are intent on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, just that this particular policy is explained well there):
* Implementation of deletion policy is not consistently applied to marginally suitable articles. The vote-based nature of the deletion process results in decisions affected by the mix of people following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion during any given week. Consequently, some articles that are deleted are arguably more meritorious than others that have been kept. Since marginally useful articles are indeed of marginal value, this doesn't create a practical problem.
You are quite welcome to nominate Wingnut for deletion if you think it unencyclopaedic. David | Talk 10:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
'