Alphax wrote:
So, a website which sells widgets and is unknown outside of the widget community should not have an article
I must ask: why on earth not, if the info is third-party verifiable? How is one to research an area one is new to without cues to such things? If you're interested in an area, why *wouldn't* you be interested in things of interest within that area?
I see no reason to deliberately reduce our possible usefulness.
The issue of webcomic articles mostly being pretty crappy is another matter, and an important one. But your proposal seems an overgeneralisation of a way to use deleting the whole article as a tool to solve *editorial* problems. The problem there being that many people think an article being deleted means another article on that topic can never be created, ever. (Some even think an article being deleted means its content shouldn't be allowed in new articles anywhere else on the encyclopedia, which I can't make sense of.)
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
David Gerard wrote:
Alphax wrote:
So, a website which sells widgets and is unknown outside of the widget community should not have an article
I must ask: why on earth not, if the info is third-party verifiable? How is one to research an area one is new to without cues to such things? If you're interested in an area, why *wouldn't* you be interested in things of interest within that area?
Why should we have articles on every single Pokemon if they are totally unknown outside of the Pokemon community?
I see no reason to deliberately reduce our possible usefulness.
I never said that such things wouldn't become more-well known and hence eventually merit their own articles.
The issue of webcomic articles mostly being pretty crappy is another matter, and an important one.
Right, the problem I see is that people with an "extreme interest" in X (you might even call it obsession) think that "all X are equally important and Wikipedia should have articles on all of them, including Y and Z".
The problem is, the rest of the X community says "oh, Y and Z are just another couple of X's, nothing special". By including Y and Z, we are effectively pushing the POV that there is something different about Y and Z with respect to all other X.
Now, should Y and Z become well-known within the X community, we can mention them in the article about X, possibly even with their own sections in the article on X.
Finally, should Y and Z become known /outside of/ the X community, we can have an article on it.
I feel that an excellent example of this is the Slashdot series.
But your proposal seems an overgeneralisation of a way to use deleting the whole article as a tool to solve *editorial* problems.
Well, we always have the ability to merge and redirect... I really don't understand what you're saying here.
The problem there being that many people think an article being deleted means another article on that topic can never be created, ever. (Some even think an article being deleted means its content shouldn't be allowed in new articles anywhere else on the encyclopedia, which I can't make sense of.)
That's completely wrong...
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
"Alphax" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote in message news:435F6CF1.9080903@gmail.com...
David Gerard wrote:
I must ask: why on earth not, if the info is third-party verifiable? How is one to research an area one is new to without cues to such things? If you're interested in an area, why *wouldn't* you be interested in things of interest within that area?
Why should we have articles on every single Pokemon if they are totally unknown outside of the Pokemon community?
At the very least we should have a list of every single Pokemon, and articles on those which might be particularly interesting, or about which there is a lot of information.
Unfortunately there is now also a tendency for lists like this to be nominated for AFD as "listcruft". "Unmaintainable" is also a term bandied about, usually meaning "incomplete" or often "I don't know what these things are so I couldn't maintain the list myself", as if it were untenable to ever include a list in Wikipedia before full membership were determined (don't these people understand, Wikipedia is **dynamic**!) and rude to include a list of things which some poor benighted person might not have come across before.
Sometimes it's difficult to discern exactly what some AFD nominators would consider suitable for an article at all.
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Alphax wrote:
Why should we have articles on every single Pokemon if they are totally unknown outside of the Pokemon community?
So that people coming from outside such communities will have the means to understand what they're talking about.
Coverage is what makes wikipedia rock.
// Jei
Personally, I think "notability" is mostly a bunch of rot. What it really is about is whether there is enough verifiable information about something to write a good article on it. What bugs me about the creation of zillions of articles on obscure subjects is when there is no effort to write a quality article.
What I consider boring minutae are someone else's lifeblood. And vice versa. I write articles about insignificant stuff all the time, as do, let's face it, most of us. They're just the insignificant stuff I personally know about.
-Matt
David Gerard wrote
The problem there being that many
people think an article being deleted means another article on that topic can never be created, ever.
Back to the classroom for them. '
Topic X is not one on which an encyclopedic article can ever be written' (X = my left nostril, for example) is a sufficient condition to delete. It is not a necessary condition, though in a sense if AfD were working at near 100% potential any salvageable article would be kept as a stub. If it were a necessary condition, then, yes, the 'what has changed?' argument would be quite strong.
But that's not the case, nohow.
Charles