| Revision as of 04:20, 11 June 2009 edit71.58.87.126 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:46, 25 October 2010 edit undoStrom (talk | contribs)996 edits Logic and reason?Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Previous reversions suggest that issues be taken to WP:DRV, but that page is only editable by Administrators. This means that an AfD can be initiated repeatedly with a fairly low bar for the burden of proof. However, in order to re-open the discussion, I need to be an administrator?! There's a quote from the 2008 AfD that is think is quite relevant. | |||
| {{WPBiography | |||
| |living=yes | |||
| |class=Start | |||
| |priority=Low | |||
| |listas=Gore, Al III | |||
| }} | |||
| :"Consensus, and indeed even our policies, can change in 3 years, Alansohn. We are not even close to the same encyclopedia that we were in 2005. A bad decision yesterday does not make a tidal current that we can not swim against today. And a good decision yesterday may not be a good decision today." | |||
| ==Don't delete this== | |||
| No one ever wanted to delete the original article until after the stuff about his illegal drug use was added. So the reason it was deleted was an attempt at censorship. The deletion had nothing to do with any lack of notability, because no one wanted to delete it until after the drug stuff was added. ] (]) 03:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I Agree. Is notable, and verifiability criterion is met, as is shown by references. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You should know by now that the way to go about this is to work on it in your own userspace, and then solicit outside opinion as to whether or not the article merits recreation. Simply recreating an extremely contentious BLP article is perhaps the worst way to go about this. ] (]) 03:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The ONLY reason anyone ever wanted to delete it was because of the drug stuff, and that's censorship. No one ever said the subject wasn't notable until AFTER the drug stuff was added. The reason for deletion never had anything to do with notability, which is why the articles on both of Gore's daughters have never been deleted. It's because of the drug stuff - that's the ONLY difference between this article and those other two. ] (]) 04:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Danski14 - Thank you. ] (]) 04:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| That was originally used to justify re-opening the AfD. Why can a regular editor not use such logic to re-open the AfD over 2 years later? I don't know all of the in's and out's of Misplaced Pages policy or how to initiate the politics associated with convincing an admin to raise this in WP:DRV ... which is why I've taken the "unilateral action" of recreating the article. ] (]) 02:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| How come no one ever wanted to delete ] and ]? ] (]) 04:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have to say, the article does provide VALID INDEPENDENT sources such as CNN. I honestly do not understand why this is being contested ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)</span>] (]) 04:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:46, 25 October 2010
Previous reversions suggest that issues be taken to WP:DRV, but that page is only editable by Administrators. This means that an AfD can be initiated repeatedly with a fairly low bar for the burden of proof. However, in order to re-open the discussion, I need to be an administrator?! There's a quote from the 2008 AfD that is think is quite relevant.
- "Consensus, and indeed even our policies, can change in 3 years, Alansohn. We are not even close to the same encyclopedia that we were in 2005. A bad decision yesterday does not make a tidal current that we can not swim against today. And a good decision yesterday may not be a good decision today."
That was originally used to justify re-opening the AfD. Why can a regular editor not use such logic to re-open the AfD over 2 years later? I don't know all of the in's and out's of Misplaced Pages policy or how to initiate the politics associated with convincing an admin to raise this in WP:DRV ... which is why I've taken the "unilateral action" of recreating the article. Strom (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)