User blog comment:Rpakr/Reforms 2/@comment-5150073-20190909115744/@comment-39541634-20190914213219

>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?

What rules?

The current problem is precisely the fact that there are no notability rules to speak of. There isn't even a requirement for numbers on the mainspace to be well-defined. There's nothing to prevent anyone from opening a silly website, filling it with complete nonsense, and adding articles about that stuff in the mainspace.

On the other hand, there's nothing to prevent admins from deleting whatever excess garbage the believe is unfit to be on the wiki. Doing so doesn't break any written rule either, because right now there are no such rules - either way.

(to be precise: there is one restriction. the requirement for an external website as source. But nobody violated this rule here, so it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand)

>I know that moderators are spposed 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.

Huh?

What does "freedom of speech" has to do with maintaining an online encyclopedia? In case you have forgotten, that is what a wiki is for: To be a trustworthy trove of information about a given subject.

A wiki mainspace is not a stage for public speaking where anything goes. Sorry, but that's not how wikis work.

> 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)...

Nobody here ever claimed that blog posts are always good sources.

People are only saying that GWiki blog posts aren't any worse then some random google-based site that was set up by a 12-year-old in 5 minutes as a source. Accepting the latter while banning the former is the pinnacle of absurdity.

And no, the solution is not to blindly accept GWiki blog posts as sources. The solution is to create quality guidelines that actually make sense, and to apply these guidelines equally on internal and external sources.