Quote Originally Posted by Tokiko Mima View Post
If WP:N is abusable and often misunderstood (by your own admission), doesn't that mean it's a policy that should be rethought, or stated more clearly? You can blame one person for not getting WP:N, but when many people read it incorrectly and use it incorrectly, doesn't that imply a strong possibility that the policy itself is flawed?
Yes. It does. So? I've been working on the matter slowly for a while now. In spite of what it says about itself, wikipedia is highly beurocratic and slow-moving.

The general notion among editors is that all kinds of mistakes are made, including deleting articles. If the subject really was very notable, the article will end up being recreated in better form.

The problem with working by consensus is that consensus takes a long time to form.

The truly astounding thing in my mind is that wikipedia could be total chaos. It's not. I'm not sure exactly how that happens.