On Feb 2, 2008 12:40 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Angela wrote:
This thread seems to completely mix up notability and verifiability. The two are not the same, and only verifiability was meant to be policy, not notability.
The policy itself is confused, in that case. I've already given an example of how I could write a fully cited and verifiable article using a primary source that would be deleted under the "third-party" requirement in the policy as written. Since TV shows are tainted by popularity, though, perhaps I should use something "scholarly "instead.
If I were to write an article about Hamlet and I cited only the text of the play (widely available anywhere) for all of the facts I wrote, is that article unverifiable?
Not by any common language definition, although I don't see how it could fail to be original research. Also, it sounds more like a book report (or Cliff's Notes) than an encyclopedia article.
It doesn't seem to me to be the right way of going about writing an encyclopedia article. Now maybe it can still be useful - if you spent any significant amount of time writing it it'd probably be a mistake to just throw it away, but I can see the reasoning that it's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.
I believe Wikipedia's strong focus on a single definite goal - making an encyclopedia - has contributed greatly to its success. I just wish all those deleted portions which were deemed not to fit in with that goal were visible. But I've been wishing that for several years now - it probably ain't gonna happen.