Bryan Derksen wrote:
Nathan Awrich wrote:
I think there is a specific standard for the
notability of fiction for
good reason. I'm not sure that having been seen by millions of glazer
over eyeballs is necessarily enough for something to be notable
Excuse me, but "glazed-over eyeballs?" These are our readers and
our
editors we're talking about. Please refrain from dismissing their
interests as unimportant because you don't share them. It would be just
as inappropriate to refer to the authors and users of our sports-related
articles as "overmuscled jocks", or our politician-related articles as
"politics weenies", or whatever other derogatory characterization one
might come up with.
If you don't find a subject area interesting to you, just _leave it alone_.
As much as Nathan is radically off-base on this issue, I would probably
be a little kinder about "glazed-over eyeballs." He's talking about a
medical phenomenon that can happen to any reader on any subject. It can
even happen on a favorable topic when the quality of the writing is
execrable.
I get it on policy pages, and one big problem with them is that the
reasonable people leave them alone. I read this at
[[Wikipedia:Notability]]: /"Presumed"/ means objective evidence meets
the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of
editors." Fearing that they haven't confused us enough the writers add
this footnote: "Non-notability is a re_buttab_le presumption
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuttable_presumption> based only on a
lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once
evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because
that would require a negative proof
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof>." I guess that
establishes that it does not take a long article to make eyes glaze
over. This is a definition of "presumed" that is contrary to the normal
use of the word. A policy (or guideline) that takes such liberties with
the language only merits ridicule.
As I see it guidelines are quasi-policy documents without enough support
to make it as policy. They should never be viewed as enforceable, and
should give wide latitude to those who would approach the subject
differently
I have a hard time believing that _none_ of them are
reliable sources.
Unless you meant perhaps peer-reviewed journal articles?
I grant that much of pop culture material is ephemeral, but that is
precisely why we should view it more favorably. By chronicling these we
give future generations a much greater insight into today's society. In
topics such as this "peer-reviewed journal articles" are a nonsensical
criterion. They are little more than excuse to support destructive
behaviour. The concept has its place in some fields of learning, but
not here.
I wouldn't
go undeleting them
unless you first get approval on policy changes. I'm sure the
fan-types will support you, but the community in general seems to be
leaning away from your position.
That doesn't seem to be the case over on the talk page of WP:EPISODE. So
if the community in general hasn't approving of the guideline that was
used as justification for deleting them, they can be deleted, but they
can't be undeleted until everyone agrees? Double standard, no thanks.
The "default" position should be to refrain from deleting when in doubt.
Indeed. These policies and guidelines have a habit of popping up all
over with the support only of those interested in developing the
statement in question. The simple fact that it is there in no way
implies that it has community support. It just means that most of the
community probably doesn't know that it's there. To say that this
policy cruft needs to meet exceptional criteria to be deleted is to
pervert all notions of fair play. If the people who support this kind
of cruft weren't so fearful that the community might strike it down they
would have no problem with a voting process that remains open even after
a guideline has been seemingly adopted. If the level of support falls
below a pre-determined level some months later it would simply cease to
be applicable. It often takes months before affected editors even notice
that a guideline has been adopted.
Ec