Not at (though I am only answering now for what I wrote). I spoke of
defining different criteria. Nowhere in my response did I use the word
"valid", not even for those that I do accept as valid. Being able to
define a criterion is still a step short of determining its validity.
Ec
John Lee wrote:
Then I believe both of you have just admitted that
"notability" is a
valid criteria for inclusion/deletion. After all, just try reading the
definition of vanity according to Wikipedia Mark linked to.
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I see nothing wrong with his position. There are multiple deletion
> criteria available. Each has its own definition. We can define a
> vanity page in terms of self-promotion or self-glorification.
> Verifiability is a different and independent criterion. Using the
> description of one criterion to determine the applicability of a
> different one is illogical.
>
> Ec
>
> John Lee wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity pages be eligible for
>> deletion if the information therein was 100% verifiable and factual?
>> Delirium said that this isn't a strawman because *we get 100%
>> verifiable articles such as vanity pages which are deleted*. You
>> argue in favour of their deletion, because they are vanity pages -
>> what constitutes a vanity page? A page written by someone seeking
>> glorification? But, why, the information's verifiable! Isn't
>> Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of human knowledge? I honestly
>> don't understand your paradoxical - dare I say, hypocritical -
>> stance on this.
>>
>> John Lee
>> ([[User:Johnleemk]])
>>
>> Mark Richards wrote:
>>
>>> It's a straw man because you are taking the case in
>>> dispute (schools) and claiming that if we keep
>>> schools, we will have to keep an article on each
>>> school band member.
>>>
>>> There are existing rules to deal with vanity articles,
>>> and to the extent that we have a problem with them,
>>> they have been deleted as vanity.
>>>
>>> Let's not confuse the issues of schools with some
>>> hypothetical deluge of articles about cheerleaders or
>>> dead cats.
>>>
>>> If I have presented my case as an extreme one, then I
>>> have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do not
>>> support an article on each high school band member. I
>>> doubt that you could really write a verifiable and
>>> factual article on them that was not a vanity page
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> It's not that these people are not notable, they
>>> certianly are to some people, it is the fact that
>>> these would be vanity articles, I am not proposing to
>>> remove this criteria for deletion.
>>