Not really. If an article's always going to be a stub, there's no point having it all. Then it's a case for redirection and merging. Really, if we can't write an FA on a certain subject, the article is dubious: if we can't manage to write an article of DYK-acceptable length it's really dodgy. One of my notability tests, anyway :)
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
From: scs@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:55:20 -0400 To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An example of a bad biography
Moreschi has done the right thing by recreating it (losing all the muckraking old history) as a permanently semi-protected stub, noting that it's likely to be a magnet for BLP violations.
A question just occurred to me: given that we know it's a magnet, do we really want to say "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it", with an extra, handy link to the edit button? Seems to me we'd really rather that many of these BLP stubs *stay* stubs.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ 100’s of prizes to be won at BigSnapSearch.com http://www.bigsnapsearch.com