Well, it was pretty overwhelmingly rejected. (Yes, yes, voting bad,
etc., etc., but it still -can- be a useful metric.) Hell, I love
changing the -name- (I think notability is a pretty poor and confusing
thing to call our inclusion criteria), and I still couldn't bring
myself to support it. Basically, the question we must ask ourselves is
"From the independent sources available, could a comprehensive,
high-quality (GA/FA) article be written on this subject someday?"
If yes, we keep. If no, we merge or delete, depending whether there's
any verifiable information at all and whether an appropriate place to
merge exists. Far easier than 4000 convoluted "notability" guidelines
(there's a separate one for porn stars for godsakes!), and much more
in line with writing an encyclopedia. (As an aside, this also -would-
eliminate those borderline bios-"15 minutes of fame (or shame)"
sourcing wouldn't allow a comprehensive article, so it'd fail that
On 4/9/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:04:46 -0400 (EDT),
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article
... which is a POV fork of WP:N by another "small but vocal" group,
this time the inclusionists. Mainly Jeff. And even Jeff's best
friend would not pretend that his inclusion criteria are anywhere near
the community centre of gravity.
It's not a POV fork at all, although I can't possibly quantify the size of
my group at this point.
My inclusion criteria begin and end with our policies and guidelines
outside of the shitty PNC. I don't think they're outside of the center of
gravity at all anymore, I'm just the only person these days willing to
draw a line in the sand.
Or, in shorter form, my reputation looms larger than my reality these days.
If you can read this, I'm not at home.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: