John,
See [[Wikipedia:Vanity page]] and [[Wikipedia:Criteria
for inclusion of biographies]] - there are exceptions
to the rule of verifiability and factuality in current
policy.
To be clear, I am not advocating repealing these
policies, simply for keeping factual, verifiable
articles on places that are of interest to, and
involve many thousands of people.
I can't help but feel that you are caricaturing my
position.
Mark
--- John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> 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.
Mark
--- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
>Mark Richards wrote:
>
>
>
>>Exactly - this is a straw man.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I don't see how it is a straw man at all. You
said
>explicitly that
>there are no criteria besides verifiability that
are
>acceptable. The
>entire contents of my local newspaper are
>verifiable, as they keep
>archives. Therefore, *anything* in my
encyclopedia
>is a valid Wikipedia
>article, and if on a whim I decide to add anything
>from it, no matter
>how non-notable, you have no basis to delete it,
>because you reject
>notability as a criterion.
>
>And there are many articles on Wikipedia like this
>that get deleted.
>There have been articles about college students
who
>made Dean's List,
>which is verifiable from the University's website;
>articles about
>members of high school marching bands, which are
>verifiable from
>published lists of marching band members; etc.
>These all get deleted
>anyway, due to non-notability.
>
>-Mark
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.