QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Sun 4th May 2008, 2:23am)
In their minds, opening a deletion review about ED is disruptive.
Oh, please, let's not be facetious
(that's their schtick). Creating an ED article is baiting them to ban you (or block you, or whatever).
Most "lifer" Wikipedians hate
that place. And fair enough. Much of it is offensive. To their sensibilities.
Ergo, writing an ED article (and insisting that it stay) is basically sticking your tongue out at them and placing them in a position of admitting that there isn't perfect free speech on the machine. Which is fair. They hate it.
I don't condone their tag-team, hypocritical, rule-avoidant approach to content control, but at the end of the day, it's their site, and it's a pretty clear majority that hates ED. Hands down losing proposition.
Writing a WR article would be more sanguine, since most WP-ers read this site religiously, and many respect the content. Still, they wouldn't allow a WR article, out of wounded pride. They hate to admit much of what WR says is right on the money. And even so, they'd kill anyone who wrote a WR article faster than an ED article. For the reason I said: WR is far too often right on the money, and no one likes being "called on their stuff". Esp. in public.