User blog comment:Rpakr/Reforms 2/@comment-5150073-20190909115744/@comment-35470197-20190915135934

> Are you seriously trying to say that only things that actually are offensive should be deleted?

> Are you seriously saying that shat hypothetical page shouldn't be deleted because "it's not hurting anyone by being there"?

Why do you think so? As I wrote, ariticles violating explaicit written rules should be deleted. Or are you seriously believing that the quality of creative manuscript determine the applicability of copyright? Say, do you think that a picture drawn by a kid, who is not a professional artist, can be freely deleted by others?

Honestly, please do not ignore the points:
 * 1) I am not saying that any non-offensive articles should be kept even though thet violate rules or laws.
 * 2) CC-BY-SA does not force us to abandon copyright.
 * 3) CC-BY-SA forces us to clarify credit for authors.
 * 4) The poverty of the quality of an creative stuff has nothing to do with the existence of copyright.

> ExE on Wikipedia

Wikipedia has a guideline to speedy deletion. Articles based on non-reproducible descriptions will be deleted. It is nothing bad.

The same is not the case for us. We do not have a written guideline of such speedy deletion.

> Or do you just think we need written notability standards before deleting more pages? That's a far more reasonable position to take.

Of course, if we create an official rule to prohibit us to post articles which is not appropriate with respect to the notability standard, then such articles should be deleted. If we do not have such a rule, creating notability standards is meaningless in this context.

What I emphasise is that we should not spoil human rights without agreement through explicit rules. How insane is the statement "moderators can freely delete articles"?

> What counts as a "good source"?

Are you considering that any rules should be written as precisely as mathematical paper? We can set rules like "Moderators can delete if they regard it as a non-reproducible manuscript which is not based on a good source." Then we can submit articles under the agreement of the rule, and moderators can delete violating articles.

Of course, If the deletion was inappropriate for other users, then we can argue based on the rule. We can argue on what sources are good. Such a rule does not restrict our creativity.

I guess that you might insist that such a rule is non-sense. However, spoiling human right such as copyright without any specific rules is worse. We should be more careful about our right.

At least, there is no reason why articles based on poor Google sites can be freely deleted. It does not violate rules. I emphasise that the poverty of the quality of an article does not mean the lack of copyright.

> By the way, does anyone know if the Japanese wiki is doing anything better on this front?

We do not delete such an article. If we find bad articles, then we just improve them by editting.