Yes, there are people who mind, but the average user
won't notice the
deletion of articles on a Hong Kong handbag company or a school. They
will notice if you delete an article on, say, Gucci, or Eton, because
those are indisputably encyclopedic.
The average user, who doesn't follow VFD and/or the Deletion Log, would not
notice if an article on Gucci or Eton was deleted. At some point maybe
they'd come across a blank page, and then they'd likely just start up a new
stub.
And these articles *aren't* indiputably encyclopedic. Britannica doesn't
have an article on Gucci (assuming you mean the company). I think the word
you're looking for is "famous", not encyclopedic. That's what
distinguishes
Gucci and Hong Kong Handbag Company. One is more famous than the other.
And there is a long list of people who don't feel that lack of fame should
be a reason for deletion.
Although I sound like a deletionist, in reality, like
Dpbsmith, I am a
strong neutral on much of this - I don't see how Wikipedia gains or
loses from the creation or deletion of any of these articles, unless
indisputably encyclopedic.
So you don't see how we'd lose from deleting 90% of the articles we have? I
guess we'd still be better than the other freely distributed online
encyclopedias; we'd be free as in freedom and have more in depth coverage,
but I seriously doubt we'd be able to crush them out of existence within 5
years.
Traditional encyclopedias don't cover less famous topics because they can't.
And I'm not just talking about paper, but not being on paper is part of it.
But the real difference is that we have far more contributors than
Britannica has. As a result, we not only *can* be more inclusive, but we
pretty much *have to be*. Sure, our contributors are unpaid and many of
them unskilled, but this is why we insist on everything in Wikipedia being
Verifiable (not original research) and NPOV. You don't have to be very
skilled to check a fact. There's no need to hire experts when the only
conclusions you allow are those which are indisputable.
If you want to call yourself a neutral, then you might as well call me a
neutral too. I don't think we should waste our time deciding what is
"notable" and what isn't. I don't think we should bother drawing a
line
between "famous" and "not famous". This is part of the reason
I've said
time and again that I won't even bother participating on VFD any more if I
can just get access to view deleted articles. I don't care all that much
about whether or not most articles are deleted from Wikipedia or kept there.
But I take issue with that information just being tossed away, so that what
4 or 5 people say should not be kept in Wikipedia today means that no
Wikimedia project can ever use the information for anything without
reinventing it. Sure, the deletion isn't permanent, but that's only true
until the database crashes, and that's something that has already happened
more than once.
Like you, I want to stop the incessant arguing on VFD. But the only way to
do that is to reach a compromise. That doesn't mean we keep X and delete Y.
It means we consider the point of view of all parties. Deletionists don't
want random page filled with non-famous things. Inclusionists don't want
useful information destroyed. Surely there are solutions which can give
both sides what they want.
And though there is no hard evidence, I think
it's suggestive how there are never any complaints about the deletion or
creation of these articles except from the article's author(s) and the
hardline inclusionists/deletionists.
No more suggestive than it is that the only people arguing about the loss of
the world's forests are hardline tree-huggers/corporate lackeys. Just
because most people don't know about a problem doesn't mean it isn't there.
Anthony