Make up? I'm not sure I understand you. I'm not going to argue whether or not my usage of the word biography was entirely correct, the vantiy page meaning is clear, they cover details of people's personal lives. I don't really understand you point. Mark
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"A page dedicated to a girlfriend, a family pet, or a social group at a high school can also be a vanity page." - [[Wikipedia:Vanity page]]
I'd take that as pretty good evidence that vanity pages aren't just biography, actually.
Did you have any other policy you want to make up, or are you done for this debate?
-Snowspinner
On Oct 30, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
The vanity criteria are well established and apply only to biography. I don't see the connection at
all.
I oppose taking criteria that were designed for biography and applying them to places, buildings, artwork, or other things.
Mark
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Then I believe both of you have just admitted
that
"notability" is a valid criteria for inclusion/deletion. After all, just try reading the definition of vanity according to Wikipedia Mark linked to.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com