I see both extremes as very BAD. Ferries may not appear notable to a random individual, but if they're the longest running one on a certain route, no one will doubt it needs inclusion. Animals, cities, scientists, and historical events are covered in regular encyclopedias, so we need to cover them too.
I see no reason any given field needs an *arbitrary* cutoff for the sake of having a cutoff. If we can achieve actual completeness in some area (e.g. articles on US towns), why the hell shouldn't we?
When people fight for the inclusion of websites and webcomics (for example) it's more of a vanity issue. It may be verifiable and presented in an NPOV manner, but the fact they're trying to get a comic/site with a tiny audience into a general purpose encyclopedia is POV too, an attempt at promotion.
Surely third-party verifiability takes care of this one. If someone else cares to write something verifiable about it, it should get in.
- d.
When people fight for the inclusion of websites and webcomics (for example) it's more of a vanity issue. It may be verifiable and presented in an NPOV manner, but the fact they're trying to get a comic/site with a tiny audience into a general purpose encyclopedia is POV too, an attempt at promotion.
Surely third-party verifiability takes care of this one. If someone else cares to write something verifiable about it, it should get in.
My point is that far too often, it's not "someone else" doing the writing. Hence the use of the word vanity. We can be the most complete encyclopedia in the world without taking all of the incoming drivel. If there wasn't cut-offs then we could list all scientists (they're mostly listed on their university website or publication) it wouldn't be vanity because they didn't write it themselves, but if the scientist in question hasn't done any noted research we would only sooth their ego. If we didn't draw a line near professors, should PhDs be included, and if those are included we might as well start on students...
Cut-offs are a healthy thing. There may be exceptions to the rule, but when sufficient information is included in an article it's easy to establish something needs inclusion.
A band may not have done any tours, no albums or charted hits out and not have any notable members or awards, but if they appear on Oprah most people would agree they deserve an article regardless of [[WP:MUSIC]] regardless of missing the WP:MUSIC guidelines.
It only gets problematic if people fail to provide enough information in the first place. You can't expect AFD voters to spend more than 10 minutes of research on their argument. In such a case simply expanding and providing such info to the voters is much more productive than arguing against deletion.
--Mgm
On 10/3/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
When people fight for the inclusion of websites and webcomics (for example) it's more of a vanity issue. It may be verifiable and presented in an NPOV manner, but the fact they're trying to get a comic/site with a tiny audience into a general purpose encyclopedia is POV too, an attempt at promotion.
Surely third-party verifiability takes care of this one. If someone else cares to write something verifiable about it, it should get in.
My point is that far too often, it's not "someone else" doing the writing. Hence the use of the word vanity.
If this is true in general of non-notability deletion listings of articles about comics, bands, schools and whatnot, it's news to me. Are you absolutely *sure* that non-notability deletions on Wikipedia are usually simply because the person writing the article is not a third party but is someone associated with their production, operation or distribution? Because that's what you seem to be saying.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 10/3/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
My point is that far too often, it's not "someone else" doing the writing. Hence the use of the word vanity.
If this is true in general of non-notability deletion listings of articles about comics, bands, schools and whatnot, it's news to me. Are you absolutely *sure* that non-notability deletions on Wikipedia are usually simply because the person writing the article is not a third party but is someone associated with their production, operation or distribution? Because that's what you seem to be saying.
Even if there was a notability requirement there'd still be a lot of this arguing going on. I don't get involved in VfDs often, usually only when an article I've got watchlisted gets nominated, but one I'm currently arguing is a good counterexample; the article about the guy in the US National Guard who changed his name to Optimus Prime. The only reason that's been put forward for deleting his article is that he isn't notable aside from his unusual name. Well, why can't having an unusual name be notable? I certainly consider it notable enough to have had the thing watchlisted for over a year now.
Anyway, I actually think that the current policy is a great approach, if people would just pay attention to what was already there. In my poking around with the policies in arguing this case I noticed that not only is "non-notability" not a criteria for deletion, but it's explicitly listed in the policy as something that shouldn't be dealt with by VfD. Under the title "*Problems that don't require deletion*" is the entry:
Problem: Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article Solution: Merge he useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect
So really, most of these "non-notability" issues shouldn't ever be brought to VfD in the first place - just merge them into main articles, like that traffic circle case from a few days back, and let the wiki process determine whether the merge was adequate or not. If peoples' beef is really with the _information_ being in Wikipedia, that's also something that can be sorted out via the wiki process - articles get trimmed and streamlined and split into sub-articles all the time without going through a voting process.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
So really, most of these "non-notability" issues shouldn't ever be brought to VfD in the first place - just merge them into main articles, like that traffic circle case from a few days back, and let the wiki process determine whether the merge was adequate or not. If peoples' beef is really with the _information_ being in Wikipedia, that's also something that can be sorted out via the wiki process - articles get trimmed and streamlined and split into sub-articles all the time without going through a voting process.
That's so true it isn't even funny. It also makes one think if it really would be all that bad if AfD was just shut down for a month like David Gerard proposed. I personally think that merging an article isn't all that more complicated than setting up an AfD, if you see setting up an AfD as more than writing "nn v -~~~~". Your mileage may vary, of course.
grm_wnr
On Oct 3, 2005, at 12:20 PM, grm_wnr wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
So really, most of these "non-notability" issues shouldn't ever be brought to VfD in the first place - just merge them into main articles, like that traffic circle case from a few days back, and let the wiki process determine whether the merge was adequate or not. If peoples' beef is really with the _information_ being in Wikipedia, that's also something that can be sorted out via the wiki process - articles get trimmed and streamlined and split into sub-articles all the time without going through a voting process.
That's so true it isn't even funny. It also makes one think if it really would be all that bad if AfD was just shut down for a month like David Gerard proposed. I personally think that merging an article isn't all that more complicated than setting up an AfD, if you see setting up an AfD as more than writing "nn v -~~~~". Your mileage may vary, of course.
One of the things I found in my hunt through AfDs for invalid nominations and speedies was that there was a very, very small portion of the 117 articles I looked through that needed to be there. 15 or so should have been slam dunk keeps, or at least merges. Another good chunk were speedies. An equally large chunk, however, were, if not speedies, at least things that any sensible person who watches AfD for a day or two could determine the result of in advance. If we add "verifiability" as a speedy criterion, the number that could be speedied goes to around 85%, I think.
Which is to say, the number of articles on a day that actually need to go to AfD on a day is incredibly small. In reality, only probably five or six articles a day need out and out deletion debates. Which would in turn help AfD stop being a vote and start being a discussion.
But apparently moving in this direction gets you RfCed with an intention of being taken to the arbcom, so there's some logistical problems to work out, it seems.
-Snowspinner
On 10/3/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
If we add "verifiability" as a speedy criterion, the number that could be speedied goes to around 85%, I think.
I do think these should be handled outside AfD, but I wouldn't make them speediable because an unverified article can be verified by research. I've suggested a copyvio-like process for this--list for a couple of weeks to give people a chance to verify, then delete if still unverified.
On Oct 3, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 10/3/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
If we add "verifiability" as a speedy criterion, the number that could be speedied goes to around 85%, I think.
I do think these should be handled outside AfD, but I wouldn't make them speediable because an unverified article can be verified by research. I've suggested a copyvio-like process for this--list for a couple of weeks to give people a chance to verify, then delete if still unverified.
This is an even better idea.
-Snowspinner
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 10/3/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
If we add "verifiability" as a speedy criterion, the number that could be speedied goes to around 85%, I think.
I do think these should be handled outside AfD, but I wouldn't make them speediable because an unverified article can be verified by research. I've suggested a copyvio-like process for this--list for a couple of weeks to give people a chance to verify, then delete if still unverified.
Hmmm! This is a bit like what I have been trying to promote in Wiktionary, but it's un uphill battle. Some people expect you to do their homework for them.
Ec
On 10/3/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
An equally large chunk, however, were, if not speedies, at least things that any sensible person who watches AfD for a day or two could determine the result of in advance. If we add "verifiability" as a speedy criterion, the number that could be speedied goes to around 85%, I think.
Come up with a solid defintion of verifiable
-- geni
On Oct 3, 2005, at 2:28 PM, geni wrote:
On 10/3/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
An equally large chunk, however, were, if not speedies, at least things that any sensible person who watches AfD for a day or two could determine the result of in advance. If we add "verifiability" as a speedy criterion, the number that could be speedied goes to around 85%, I think.
Come up with a solid defintion of verifiable
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Information that is checkable through a source that is both reasonably accessible and reasonably likely to be around in a decade. Internet sources are maximally accessible and kind of minimally permanent, though it depends on the website - the higher the Alexa ranking of the site that hosts the information, in general the more likely it is to survive, if for no other reason than that archive.org is likely to preserve it. Random Geocities pages and the like - not enough for verifiability.
Print media through a reputable press is pretty much always enough - newspapers, magazines, etc. A decent rule of thumb for print would be "Is there likely a university library in America that's holding onto this?" If yes, it's enough.
-Snowspinner
Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Oct 3, 2005, at 2:28 PM, geni wrote:
On 10/3/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
An equally large chunk, however, were, if not speedies, at least things that any sensible person who watches AfD for a day or two could determine the result of in advance. If we add "verifiability" as a speedy criterion, the number that could be speedied goes to around 85%, I think.
Come up with a solid defintion of verifiable
Information that is checkable through a source that is both reasonably accessible and reasonably likely to be around in a decade. Internet sources are maximally accessible and kind of minimally permanent, though it depends on the website - the higher the Alexa ranking of the site that hosts the information, in general the more likely it is to survive, if for no other reason than that archive.org is likely to preserve it. Random Geocities pages and the like - not enough for verifiability.
Print media through a reputable press is pretty much always enough - newspapers, magazines, etc. A decent rule of thumb for print would be "Is there likely a university library in America that's holding onto this?" If yes, it's enough.
Fair enough, but I would not include the limitation "in America".
I'm currently trying, without success, to find info about "Esson's Land". It's a geographical territory roughly along the south shore of Alaska. My source is a book on map projections published in 1717 (i.e. before Captain Cook's voyages in the Pacific). I don't have enough on it to even write a stub, but the reference source is still interesting. Ec
One of the things I found in my hunt through AfDs for invalid nominations and speedies was that there was a very, very small portion of the 117 articles I looked through that needed to be there. 15 or so should have been slam dunk keeps, or at least merges. Another good chunk were speedies. An equally large chunk, however, were, if not speedies, at least things that any sensible person who watches AfD for a day or two could determine the result of in advance. If we add "verifiability" as a speedy criterion, the number that could be speedied goes to around 85%, I think.
Verifiability is already a reason to move something to the talk page, and a blank article is certainly a speedy (unless it was created by an admin), isn't it?
On 10/3/05, grm_wnr grmwnr@gmail.com wrote:
I personally think that merging an article isn't all that more complicated than setting up an AfD, if you see setting up an AfD as more than writing "nn v -~~~~". Your mileage may vary, of course.
Actually it's much simpler. Listing on AfD involves various wikipedians performing the following tasks:
adding the "afd" template creating the nomination page transcluding the nomination page on the day log discussing, examining, researching, and extending the article scanning the day log to find the unclosed AfD determining a consensus, closing the debate and deleting or removing the tag performing redirects and merges that may result.
To merge, choose a target, copy selected text to the target article, make a note on the talk page of the target, and redirect the source article to the target.
When I've performed the latter, I've found that it takes a couple of minutes.
On 10/3/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
adding the "afd" template creating the nomination page transcluding the nomination page on the day log discussing, examining, researching, and extending the article scanning the day log to find the unclosed AfD determining a consensus, closing the debate and deleting or removing the tag performing redirects and merges that may result.
You missed reading through the instructions for listing since the seem to change more often than I list stuff.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
geni wrote:
On 10/3/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
adding the "afd" template creating the nomination page transcluding the nomination page on the day log discussing, examining, researching, and extending the article scanning the day log to find the unclosed AfD determining a consensus, closing the debate and deleting or removing the tag performing redirects and merges that may result.
You missed reading through the instructions for listing since the seem to change more often than I list stuff.
What if the instructions change when you are halfway through listing it? :)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
grm_wnr wrote:
That's so true it isn't even funny. It also makes one think if it really would be all that bad if AfD was just shut down for a month like David Gerard proposed. I personally think that merging an article isn't all that more complicated than setting up an AfD, if you see setting up an AfD as more than writing "nn v -~~~~". Your mileage may vary, of course.
I recently saw "D, totally NN". heh.
- -- Phroziac | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/anya2 | / \
On 10/3/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 10/3/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
My point is that far too often, it's not "someone else" doing the writing. Hence the use of the word vanity.
If this is true in general of non-notability deletion listings of articles about comics, bands, schools and whatnot, it's news to me. Are you absolutely *sure* that non-notability deletions on Wikipedia are usually simply because the person writing the article is not a third party but is someone associated with their production, operation or distribution? Because that's what you seem to be saying.
Even if there was a notability requirement there'd still be a lot of this arguing going on. I don't get involved in VfDs often, usually only when an article I've got watchlisted gets nominated, but one I'm currently arguing is a good counterexample; the article about the guy in the US National Guard who changed his name to Optimus Prime. The only reason that's been put forward for deleting his article is that he isn't notable aside from his unusual name. Well, why can't having an unusual name be notable? I certainly consider it notable enough to have had the thing watchlisted for over a year now.
Anyway, I actually think that the current policy is a great approach, if people would just pay attention to what was already there. In my poking around with the policies in arguing this case I noticed that not only is "non-notability" not a criteria for deletion, but it's explicitly listed in the policy as something that shouldn't be dealt with by VfD. Under the title "*Problems that don't require deletion*" is the entry:
Problem: Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article Solution: Merge he useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect
So really, most of these "non-notability" issues shouldn't ever be brought to VfD in the first place - just merge them into main articles, like that traffic circle case from a few days back, and let the wiki process determine whether the merge was adequate or not. If peoples' beef is really with the _information_ being in Wikipedia, that's also something that can be sorted out via the wiki process - articles get trimmed and streamlined and split into sub-articles all the time without going through a voting process. _______________________________________________
It's certainly worth an article a few months back I came across an article on a Scandinavian kid who'd been called B (or something similar by their parents) but the government wouldn't allow it. Their alternative wasn't much better. The fact unusual names are quite uncommon makes any such name officially recognized by a country's government quite notable. What was their argument for it not being notable?
--Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 10/3/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I don't get involved in VfDs often, usually only when an article I've got watchlisted gets nominated, but one I'm currently arguing is a good counterexample; the article about the guy in the US National Guard who changed his name to Optimus Prime. The only reason that's been put forward for deleting his article is that he isn't notable aside from his unusual name. Well, why can't having an unusual name be notable? I certainly consider it notable enough to have had the thing watchlisted for over a year now.
<snip>
It's certainly worth an article a few months back I came across an article on a Scandinavian kid who'd been called B (or something similar by their parents) but the government wouldn't allow it. Their alternative wasn't much better. The fact unusual names are quite uncommon makes any such name officially recognized by a country's government quite notable. What was their argument for it not being notable?
The debate's over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Optimus_Prime_%... - I actually brought up the person I think you're referring to, originally his parents wanted to name him "Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116" (pronounced "Albin") and when the Swedish government refused they tried changing the spelling to "A". That didn't work either. I don't suppose anyone knows what he eventually wound up being named, by the way?
Anyway, I've tried to explain why I consider Optimus to be a notable person, but the original VfD nominator doesn't seem to understand that I (and other "keep" voters on this matter) really truly consider him notable for non-bonkers reasons - he's suggested we might be voting keep for non-serious reasons. I suspect there's some sort of fundamental philosophical difference between us on this matter that will be hard to find a middle ground on. Unfortunately I don't see this as being as easy to find a common solutiuons on as an NPOV debate because it's not easy to both delete _and_ keep an article.
An older Optimus Prime delete debate actually resolved itself as a "merge", which is sort of like that. It worked for a little while, but I recreated the article after the merged material got pared down to just a single sentence in the main article - I considered that to be a bit extreme. That's why the thing's languished on my watchlist for so long. I can't believe I'm discussing the case again a year later. :) **
On 10/3/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/3/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
When people fight for the inclusion of websites and webcomics (for example) it's more of a vanity issue. It may be verifiable and presented in an NPOV manner, but the fact they're trying to get a comic/site with a tiny audience into a general purpose encyclopedia is POV too, an attempt at promotion.
Surely third-party verifiability takes care of this one. If someone else cares to write something verifiable about it, it should get in.
My point is that far too often, it's not "someone else" doing the writing. Hence the use of the word vanity.
If this is true in general of non-notability deletion listings of articles about comics, bands, schools and whatnot, it's news to me. Are you absolutely *sure* that non-notability deletions on Wikipedia are usually simply because the person writing the article is not a third party but is someone associated with their production, operation or distribution? Because that's what you seem to be saying.
I probably wasn't entirely clear. What I was saying is that there's a lot of people that try to glorify a particular subject they admire which has no reason to be in an encyclopedia to begin with. I subscribe to the belief we can't have an article on every single website or band in the world, so cut-offs and inclusion criteria are the next logical step. What those criteria should be in order to keep out the drivel and keep in useful stuff could be up for debate.
For example, books should have a 5000 people audience according to current guidelines. Since webcomics don't have the limitation of being released in one country and not in another, the potential audience for it is larger, so I see 5000 people audience as a reasonable criterion for inclusion of a certain webcomic.
Popularity should be just as verifiable as everything else, so if you come across a comic with ghastly google and Alexa ranking and a ghost town of a forum, it's reasonable to assume it's not popular as claimed, despite what the article may claim.
--Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
For example, books should have a 5000 people audience according to current guidelines. Since webcomics don't have the limitation of being released in one country and not in another, the potential audience for it is larger, so I see 5000 people audience as a reasonable criterion for inclusion of a certain webcomic.
Just as a quick thought/addendum/pointing-out-thing, it might be important to keep in mind that readership of webcomics waxes and wanes, and webcomics "die" from time to time. This should probably be specified as a 5000-person audience at any point in the webcomic's run, since otherwise webcomics might get unfairly deleted based on current popularity as opposed to "historical" popularity.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Bryan Derksen wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
For example, books should have a 5000 people audience according to current guidelines. Since webcomics don't have the limitation of being released in one country and not in another, the potential audience for it is larger, so I see 5000 people audience as a reasonable criterion for inclusion of a certain webcomic.
Just as a quick thought/addendum/pointing-out-thing, it might be important to keep in mind that readership of webcomics waxes and wanes, and webcomics "die" from time to time. This should probably be specified as a 5000-person audience at any point in the webcomic's run, since otherwise webcomics might get unfairly deleted based on current popularity as opposed to "historical" popularity.
Oh good, that means we can delete all the articles on Pokemon, B-grade afternoon soaps, one-hit wonders, and the Roman Empire, right? *ducks*
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Alphax wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Just as a quick thought/addendum/pointing-out-thing, it might be important to keep in mind that readership of webcomics waxes and wanes, and webcomics "die" from time to time. This should probably be specified as a 5000-person audience at any point in the webcomic's run, since otherwise webcomics might get unfairly deleted based on current popularity as opposed to "historical" popularity.
Oh good, that means we can delete all the articles on Pokemon, B-grade afternoon soaps, one-hit wonders, and the Roman Empire, right? *ducks*
I think one of us is failing to understand the other somehow - my addendum was supposed to make it _harder_ to delete webcomic articles (by reminding people not to forget about historical popularity as opposed to just what the readership happens to be right at this moment), and it had nothing to do with any of those other things you mention at all. I don't see any connection.
Of course, the "*ducks*" at the end of your comment also suggests that this wasn't meant seriously, so perhaps I'm simply failing to get the joke. :)
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It only gets problematic if people fail to provide enough information in the first place. You can't expect AFD voters to spend more than 10 minutes of research on their argument. In such a case simply expanding and providing such info to the voters is much more productive than arguing against deletion.
If they fail to give sources it doesn't even take 10 minutes to figure that out. It's easier to use that criterion than to try to establish a lack of notability.
Ec
"Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net wrote in message news:4341D9A6.4090806@telus.net...
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It only gets problematic if people fail to provide enough information in the first place. You can't expect AFD voters to spend more than 10 minutes of research on their argument. In such a case simply expanding and providing such info to the voters is much more productive than arguing against deletion.
If they fail to give sources it doesn't even take 10 minutes to figure that out. It's easier to use that criterion than to try to establish a lack of notability.
...in which case, {{Not verified}} is a better tool to reach for than {{afd}}
On 03/10/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I see both extremes as very BAD. Ferries may not appear notable to a random individual, but if they're the longest running one on a certain route, no one will doubt it needs inclusion. Animals, cities, scientists, and historical events are covered in regular encyclopedias, so we need to cover them too.
I see no reason any given field needs an *arbitrary* cutoff for the sake of having a cutoff. If we can achieve actual completeness in some area (e.g. articles on US towns), why the hell shouldn't we?
And we're slowly inching towards making this coverage elsewhere - wikipedia-l had some discussion about "internationalising" the various rambot-like projects. It's not impossible, with the growing accessibility of census data, open geographical databases and the like, that we'll be able to have that level of coverage for all of the West within five years or so.
It's surprising how many fields we can achieve completeness in. There are obvious things - biographies of all US presidents, say, or Nobel prizewinners, lists of all countries, articles on all known moons, that sort of thing.
But given time, I expect to see an article covering every ship commissioned into the US or UK navies, for example - the framework is there, and people are slowly working on it. We currently have articles on every national election in the UK, Canada, and the US - and I suspect many others will follow. We have a framework in place for creating biographies for everyone returned by those elections. We have an article on every single manned spaceflight back to 1960, and I wouldn't be surprised to find one for every unmanned one in a few years time. We have the framework for articles on every major visible star, and indeed for every single named asteroid. That's quite a handful of very specialised reference works we'll have swallowed up and hardly noticed, and just mentioning the areas I've seen enough of to feel safe commenting on.
And nary an inclusion debate in the lot.
On the matter of completeness... a while back I bought a 1907 copy of Chambers' Biographical Dictionary, a massive collection of - well, {{bio-stub}}s. Repeatedly looking in it at random has so far turned up exactly two people who we didn't have articles already, and both of them we had as redlinks.
I figure that says something.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Andrew Gray wrote:
And nary an inclusion debate in the lot.
I agree that most things won't draw such a debate, and even if a lot of the articles proposed for deletions really are deletable there is still that small obsessive group determined to preserve our "bodily humours" in the manner of Dr. Strangelove. They need to be more sensitive to the efforts of others, and to understand that many of these most bitter disputes are not about what's in the articles, but about a small group that wants to control the work of others.
On the matter of completeness... a while back I bought a 1907 copy of Chambers' Biographical Dictionary, a massive collection of - well, {{bio-stub}}s. Repeatedly looking in it at random has so far turned up exactly two people who we didn't have articles already, and both of them we had as redlinks.
I have several of these myself, including Allen's "American Biorgaphical Dictionary" from 1857, Lippincott's Gazeteer from 1872, and three different editions of Haydn's Book of Dates. That's a lot of fascinating material, but the ambition that I felt when I bought these volumes is not matched by the time that I have to do anything about them. :-)
Ec