On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:26:08 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
If there's a sitaution where notable things are *not* being included because of our guidelines, it's a problem on our end and not on the outside. One size fits all simply doesn't work.
For what value of notable? If "notable" means it's been the primary subject of a few reliable secondary sources, which seems like a reasonable definition, then that should not happen. I've said before, I'm all for a contextual definition of reliable.
If it means copying the latest "noise and fury signifying nothing" from teh internets, then no, I don't think it's broken at all. We don't *actually* need an article on Limecat in order to be a credible encyclopaedia :-)
The problem is that the entire process is polluted by crap like longcat, limecat, Brian Peppers, and determined efforts by fans of each and every anime, cartoon series, reality show, to have an article on every single tiny facet of every single episode of the object of their obsession.
It is very hard to pull out the god ones from the endless torrent of crap. And the judgment of good is in any case not objective, since you like things that I don't and - I am sure - vice versa. Maybe you think we can do without an article on every single baroque composer.
Guy (JzG)