On 12/11/05, Mark Gallagher
<m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
G'day Anthony,
> On 12/9/05, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
>>>Yes, you've confused what I've said. I think we should add more
>>>*objective* criteria to the speedy deletion candidates, not
>>>*subjective* ones.
>>
>>If totaly objective criteria don't turn up much outside maths
>
> I find it hard to believe that we can't come up with objective
> criteria for articles that everyone agrees should be deleted.
> Verifiability, for instance, is an objective criterion.
Verifiability is necessary, but not sufficient, for an encyclopaedic
article. But not everyone agrees on that (IIRC, you yourself have gone
to great --- perhaps even "extreme" --- lengths to show your disagreement).
Verifiability is in some ways quite a harsh requirement. It was what
got [[yoism]] deleted.
--
geni
I'm not familiar with that case. It seems like you're saying that
there is non-verifiable information that should nonetheless be
included in the encyclopedia? I highly doubt you could convince me to
agree with that.
Anthony