Ray Saintonge wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
What is gained by creating this second class of verifiability? Why do article topics need to be super-verified? Or, more specifically, why is normal, garden-variety verifiability not good enough for article topics? And if it's not good enough for article topics, why is it good enough for your garden variety information?
Regardless of what you call it, it is perfectly obvious that the threshold for including something in an article should be lower than the threshold for giving something its own article. The alternative would result in Wikipedia being a website containing billions is interlinked stubs with nothing else since as soon as anything was deemed worthy of getting added to an article it would be split of into its own article.
Sure, but when something falls in that intermediate range between the two levels we have an argument for merger, and clearly not for deletion.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Merging is generally a much better option. "Fails notability" doesn't necessarily mean "must be immediately deleted and salted", if an appropriate parent topic or combination topic exists.