Not really. If an article's always going to be a stub, there's no point having it
all. Then it's a case for redirection and merging. Really, if we can't write an FA
on a certain subject, the article is dubious: if we can't manage to write an article
of DYK-acceptable length it's really dodgy. One of my notability tests, anyway :)
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
From: scs(a)eskimo.com
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:55:20 -0400
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An example of a bad biography
Moreschi has done the right thing by recreating it (losing all
the muckraking old history) as a permanently semi-protected stub,
noting that it's likely to be a magnet for BLP violations.
A question just occurred to me: given that we know it's a magnet,
do we really want to say "You can help Wikipedia by expanding
it", with an extra, handy link to the edit button? Seems to me
we'd really rather that many of these BLP stubs *stay* stubs.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________
100’s of prizes to be won at
BigSnapSearch.com
http://www.bigsnapsearch.com