--- Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
Why not just start applying the policy? Set a time
limit.
No RS, delete.
...
It seems like there has been an extended and unstated policy to create essentially article shells simply to
get
the article count up and increase Wikipedia's
popularity.
I've created my share of stubs and this is not even remotely the reason why. In most cases it's because I went looking for an article, didn't find it, and wanted to get it started so that hopefully others would add more detail. Why should I care about Wikipedia's gross article count?
Assume good faith, please.
OK. AGF. The stubs went nowhere. It's not your falt. It may have even scared others away. You tried, nothing happened. Time to let it go and AGF upon those deleting it.
WP has a high enough count and popularity. Why not
start
actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the
long
standing yet rarely applied policies?
[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] is not policy.
Problem is, under the scenario given, othing is verifiable supports the articles. That makes it a violation of verifiablity, regardless of what guidelines you prefer, but WP:V does just happens to mention reliable sources in its 1st sentence. It's also a violation of original research because there's nothing to show otherwise. Let's not forget NPOV, which states at the very top "... significant views that have been published by a reliable source."
There's nothing stated in any policy or guideline about giving stubs long-term policy exception status.
of jokes about knowledge by consensus and hearsay like
that
on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what trust it has.
That's a false dilemma.
It's original research, I'll grant you that. Nonetheless, the jokes and increased publicity and stature thereof are verifiable.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com