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.