-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Alphax" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote in message news:435F6564.4010207@gmail.com... [snip]
"Is noted outside of the community it originated" is one of the things I tried to pin to the "notable" tag (foolish me). By that I mean: "has received attention outside of its own fandom". So, a website which sells widgets and is unknown outside of the widget community should not have an article; a website which is reasonably well-known in the widget community should be mentioned in the article on widgets; and a website which sells widgets, well known within the widget community, /which has been Slashdotted/, could have it's own article.
The problem here is that there are many people/things which are extremely interesting but---until we write about them---all but unknown **outside their particular subject community**.
For example, I doubt if I could name half-a-dozen Particle Physicists. I'll bet you there are ten times that many who deserve an article of their own, but you'd be hard put to it to convince some of the hard-core AFD deletionists of it, because they simply vote "nn, never heard of them" without even giving the appearance of reading the article.
Alright, I admit it, it's a stupid idea.
What I can't understand is that I come to an encyclopaedia wanting to find things I **don't** already know about, not endless regurgitation of stuff I already knew. So rejecting an article on the grounds that I don't already know the subject matter seems nonsensical to me.
Am I alone?
No. It's just difficult to get one's head around all this...
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \