On 5/11/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/05/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Invincible_Snow... The whole concept of notability just seems to be letting us down.
Just because people talkin' 'bout notability, doesn't mean they have a useful definition. But a 'private ski resort'? What does that even mean?
FWIW, I raised the general issue on WT:AFD, and the discussion is actually pretty good so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Take_care_...
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
To be clear on that: I agree with David to some degree, the subject-specific stuff is totally subjective and has to go. But N itself is a -brilliant- idea. We really should have enough independent source material to someday write a GA or FA on a subject in order to justify a full article on it. (Note I mean that amount of source material should -exist-, even if the article is -currently- a one-source stub.) Otherwise, delete it, merge it, redirect it, do -something- with it, but get rid of the forest of stubs that won't ever get past that because they -can't- ever get past that. One decent article and nine useful redirects are far better than ten permastubs.