He said sections, not articles. WP:UNDUE applies
Whether a version of WP:UNDUE should apply across the whole
encyclopedia is essentially the question of notability repackaged. And
when you spin sections out of existing articles to form new articles,
then WP:UNDUE clashes with WP:NOTABILITY (expand a section - you may
be unbalancing the article; spin off section to form a new article -
you may be unbalancing the encyclopedia).
That's a view of the project that comes from an immature understanding
of it. Unbalancing an article is all visible on the same page;
however, three million Simpsons articles is *invisible* to the readers
of articles on particle physics unless they specifically go looking
for them. It actually doesn't affect them at all.
Back in the early days of the odious origins of the jargon word
"notability", back when it was a buzzword on VFD meaning "I haven't
heard of it," people would raise this as one of the spurious arguments
that made no sense on a moment's reflection. Like the one that too
much text would overload the servers, so the okemon articls had to go.
Please don't say this stuff without at least a moment's thought on
whether it actually makes any sense.
Thanks, I was trying to make sense of it before responding. ;-)
I must say too that the use by some of "WP:XXXX" in some form tends to
be a shortcut for a whole lot of opinions about which there may or may
not be agreement.
I take the simple view that if something was notable as a section of an
article it will retain its notability when split off as a separate
article. The idea that making some part of an article would give undue
weight to that part seems terribly unwiki. We used to support the
notion of leaving something for others to do; but now it seems as though
we expect everything in an article should be developed at a proportional
rate, and always perfectly. This may be fine for feature articles, and
the people who have bought into that process. Personally I don't give a
damn about feature articles; I'm just not that much of an egotist.
I believe in an ever improving encyclopaedia; I only fail to be obsessed