If so, then even in what we think we do best, we are incomplete. It's
time to stop worrying about having too much; we have too little. I'm
sure there are hundreds of shows from the early years of television
that need treatment. I know there are hundreds of classic novels that
are merely mentioned in a list.
I have a suggestion: nobody be permitted to propose deleting more
articles than they create, or removing more content than they write
afresh.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Judson Dunn wrote:
Anyway, I much prefer Utility as a criteria.
Would people use an
article about cholesterol, yes. Would they use one about Bulbasaur?
yes. Would they use one about a Leica D-lux 3, yes. Would they use one
about every fire hydrant in Pancake, TX? No.
Luckily this is solved by our other inclusion policies already, it
would be trivial to find reliable sources for the first three, much
harder, if it's even possible, for the fourth. We don't really need
any new policy, we just need to get rid of notability for good.
Certainly, we may
find it difficult to imagine that anyone might find a
reliable source for those fire hydrants, but if they do we must respect
that.
So there really is a place called Pancake, Texas (population 11), but we
don't even mention it in our article on [[Coryell County, Texas]], or
even that the post office was once named "Bush". I haven't checked if
we have articles on Pancake, PA or Pancake, WV, or the historical
Pancake, NV.
Ec
_______________________________________________
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
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.