Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/22 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
If there is only one noteworthy fact about the subject, the article should probably be merged per BLP1E. If there isn't more than a paragraph worth of stuff to say about a subject, you need to think long and hard about whether there should be an article. In some cases, there probably should, but I think it most cases such a lack of information is a sign that the article should be deleted or merged.
This is certainly not the case in, for example, medieval history. It's all relative to a background: what expectation is there of ample factual material?
And another thing - I'd resist this in all cases where there was a place for a person in a line of succession boxes. It is really no good merging an article if it messes up some useful navigation.
Sure, like I said, there will be cases where it is appropriate. I think those cases are quite rare, though.
While it is fashionable, seemingly, to look at these small "issues" separately, as if they can be treated as isolated cases where hard-edged rules apply, I think this is the wrong approach. And I don't think it for the general good to dismiss exceptions. Anyone who formulates a general "rule" is under the obligation to think through the exceptional cases, and I deprecate the business done the other way round, where the onus is put on thoughtful people to point out that clumsy rules can do harm.
Charles