Vanity conlang - someone makes up their own language, and writes to write about it on Wikipedia Vanity programming language - someone makes up their own programming language, and wants to write about it on Wikipedia (note that these aren't often actually used by anyone else...) And what about micronations?
(I'm just trying to explore how far you think vanity stretches into these areas, and how far our views are actually apart).
-- ambi
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 08:19:19 -0800 (PST), Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
Garage bands would mostly seem to be covered by vanity pages, I don't know what a vanity conlang is, and programming languages? If they are real, I would probably keep them. Mark
--- Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
What about garage bands? Vanity conlangs and programming languages? Etc, etc.
-- ambi
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:33:04 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com 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!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.