[WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

[David Goodman]

Of course I wouldn't put them up for AfD. There is no reason to make
the previous text inaccessible--and conceivably some of it could be
used.  I could do much more rewriting if people put fewer acceptable
(or at least fixable or mergeable)  articles up for unwarranted AfDs,
or did not try to change WP:N policy to justify deleting still more.

Now, I came here to write, but I've ended up doing mainly rescuing.
It's hard to say which should have priority--making existing articles
better, or  getting acceptable new articles.  My choice was rescue
because fewer people were doing that.

A difficulty with the updated EB articles is that people did not
normally indicate just what part was from the EB,  so it is hard to
tell from the face what part is unreliable. (It can of course be told
by looking at the first versions in the history, or by checking the
Wiksource link if present--or one of the other available online texts,
or guessed at by looking for  opinionated prose. )

As for the British parliamentarian, I can't identify him.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Andrew Gray<andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
> 2009/8/19 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
>> 2009/8/19  <wjhonson at aol.com>:
>>
>>> Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
>>> source is EB1911.  I would submit that if you actually put these up for
>>> AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW.  Sure the articles could be
>>> fixed, but the previous point was that a single tertiary source isn't
>>> sufficient for an article and I think it probably is.. depending.
>>
>> I remember copyediting one article on a now-obscure 18th century
>> British parliamentarian. Basically I just rewrote for style. And,
>> y'know, I'm pretty sure it'd be a reasonable start on the article, and
>> certainly not a deletion candidate just for having 1911EB as its sole
>> source.
>
> I've found that a lot of our material tagged as from EB1911 has now
> pretty much vanished entirely under three or four years of editing -
> it might be instructive to dig through them and see what needs
> rewriting anyway.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:1911
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>