User blog comment:Rpakr/Reforms 2/@comment-5150073-20190909115744/@comment-35470197-20190910153831

@ Plain'N'Simple

> Also, keep in mind that there just aren't enough active members here to formally enact new rules. Try to suggest a new rule, and see how many votes you get... When the discussion is less formal, more people respond, and the direction in which the community wants the wiki to go becomes clearer.

But putting aside whether formally or informally, shouldn't we change the exact text of the rule before deciding to erase literary legal and non-offensive articles? I know that moderators are supposed to deal with offensive/hating/inacceptable articles even though they are unfortunately legal in the current rules. But in this situation, the deleted articles are not so awfully halmful that we should restrict out freedom of speech through the censorship.

> Blog posts

I agree that the extreme example is ridiculous. But I could not help but imagining the next stage: "Since many unimportant blog posts prevent people to seek meaningful ideas, they should be deleted." Due to the direction that admitting blog posts as "good sources" (i.e. worth than articles as sources) and deleting "unimortant" article for the purpose to improve accessibility, it is possible in the future even if the current community believes that it is ridicurous.

I do not insist such a thing if the reason of the requirement of the deletion is just unimportance or just because the existence is "strange" according to rpakr. If they are actually as halmful as offensive posts, then the deletion is reasonable. But the deletion based on such an intuitive resistance is not reasonable, even though there exist reasonable backgrounds in others' mind than him. The deletion itself can be eventually a correct answer, but should be based on reasonable thoughts instead of his sudden intuitive dissatisfaction. If there were many arguments on this, then it should be based on them instead of it. Even if the result is the same, but the process is still quite important, because we are arguing on deletion of non-offensive legal articles.