Bryan Derksen wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
You are welcome to B, but I will likely R and start to D. Secondary sources or not. That applies to asteroids too, but they can always be listified later.
Are you serious? I mention asteroids and now the articles about them are in your sights for removal too, "secondary sources or not"?
I also mentioned dead congressmen, wee little towns, and books. How about those?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I believe you misunderstood "secondary sources or not". That's likely my fault for failing to word my point clearly. What I mean is, whether an article is standalone, merged, or removed should hinge on one question-"How much secondary source material is available on this subject?" If the answer is "plenty", we can write a comprehensive article, and should have one. If the answer is "a little", we should find a suitable parent article. If the answer is "none or namedrops/entries in directories only", it may or may not merit mention in a parent article, but definitely shouldn't be standalone.