(Sorry I'm late to this discussion, I was out of town.)
So this sounds like a new position, the idea of a middle ground. Some things should not be encouraged, but should not be deleted either. Right?
Where does What Wikipedia Is Not fit in to this? I always assumed that WWIN listed the criteria for whether something should be deleted or not. Or more specifically, it lists the criteria for whether something should be fixed - but if it's unfixable, then delete it (e.g. if it can never become more than a dictionary definition).
The problem I've had all along is that WWIN doesn't say anything about trivia or ephemera. So there's no agreement on whether to delete them or not. So I take it that Jimbo's position is that these things would fall into a new category in WWIN - those things that should be discouraged but not deleted. If someone is motivated enough to create a list of songs whose title does not appear anywhere in their lyrics, then we shouldn't delete it, but we shouldn't encourage it either. So "Wikipedia is not for trivia" isn't really either true or false. Does that sound like what you were saying?
Alex (axlrosen)
I think one viewpoint is that trivia and ephemera are fun and add interest to the encyclopedia.
I think we are somewhat protected by the obvious fact that before someone puts trivia or ephemera up it has to be interesting enough to get their attention; thus is likely to get the attention of others. The cat up the tree article just doesn't get written, but Mike the headless chicken does (and could in his time tour the country).
Fred