On 02/02/2008, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Ian Woollard wrote:
That's a subtle form of OR though. It's OR that the TV series is important enough to be in the encyclopedia in the first place. How could anyone ever remove anything? How could anyone ever prove or disprove that an untraceable editor had nothing to do with the TV series in the first place? At least if it's we trace the notability to a reliable source then self-interested articles are much less likely, and it's fairly unambiguous whether we can add it or not. There needs to be some rules, and the rules need to more or less work.
But this argument is implicitly assuming the validity of the very premise that I'm disputing; that "lack of notability" is, in and of itself, a good reason to delete an article. If we've got editors who spend the effort to write an accurate article with sources and such, conforming to all the other policies and guidelines that determine what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be like, why throw that away?
Because making a DVD from scratch isn't difficult or particularly expensive, so you're basically letting anybody use the wikipedia for what amounts to a webspace and using it to 'summarise' their own work.
We don't have space limits, and as I pointed out elsewhere in the thread it's not necessarily a drain on editor resources either since editors volunteer to work on the things that interest them.
If we don't have any space limits then the wikipedia is a webspace?
Aren't we mostly trying to collect the shiny stones that are lying on the beach that is this world, the ones that people are interested in, not just the dull rocks?
Our editors are people, and they write articles about what they're interested in.
I think we're really trying to make an encyclopedia, not with articles that people are interested in writing, but interested in *reading*; and unless you have a better idea, you need a good metric on what people are likely to be interested in reading.
Notability at least has the virtue of implying that somebody or an organization with a reputation to protect is saying that something is good and if it is good then people will be much more likely to be interested in reading about it.