Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-6032121-20191015160636

The point that the facts have changed from when you originally took the decision is a fair one. I will note, though, that when by all appearances it's straightforwardly valid, inclusion debates aren't necessary; they come in when there is controversy. Obviously CoT was mistaken in his belief that there would be no controversy, of course, but if by his analysis a debate would be pointless (which is fair enough: even in the old system, the stories, by all appearances, passed the letter of the 4 little rules, even if there is now some disagreement on what "officially released" should mean). My point being that inclusion debate aren't necessarily required for creating pages about works, whereas, outside of sheer trolling, they should be required for deleting ones.

But you're right, let's stop discussing blames for a former decision which, due to the change in the situation, no longer applies anyway. I would like to note that my request for the other two admins who took the decision with you to chime in was specifically based on the idea that even if you didn't, they might be able to explain their thought process when taking said decision. If by your analysis the old rationale is no longer applicable anyway, would you agree that we just drop it and go forward with the debate without waiting to hear from these two people? (Even if it would still be nice for them to participate eventually if they can find the time.)

Looking forward to reading your various points.