On 11/9/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: Not bad. The text was introduced by an IP and taken from here: http://starmometer.com/2006/09/20/jellica-jelli-marie-mateo-philippine-idol… Green archer's text was probably original. You sure they don't have gosip mags in the Philippines? Could be asking the people from tl.wikipedia. They appear to be doing quite well (has anyone checked if there any previous encyclopedias in the Filipino language?) Merge and redirect would be one course of action now the copyvios have been vaporised. -- geni

On Nov 9, 2006, at 11:36 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: Not that I think this is a good idea necessarily, but... Intro Paragraph ==Biography== Phrased in terms of "The show presented Mr. Wales as a..." ==Audition Process== Mr. Wales auditioned with "If I Were a Rich Man" from "Fiddler on the Roof," to the delight of judges X and Y. Z, on the other hand... ==In the competition== Discussion of what they sang, quotes to the media coverage of the show at the time as well as the judges comments giving a sense of the judgment of how it was, were they in the bottom three, etc. ==Elimination== Self-evident. Don't forget to mention if he cried! ==After Idol== Any information on their post-Idol careers, drawn from varieties of "Where are They Nows," later media features, etc. That's a non-stub article that would be drawn entirely from verifiable sources, and could be done on pretty much any American Idol contestant. To someone who knows where to look, I'm sure it could be done for Filipino Idol. Now, I think it's a stupid article to write. I look at someone who writes that and wonder why they can't go fix some of the articles that make Wikipedia into a bit of a joke on serious academic topics. But, you know, I have no inherent problem with the article. It's just not one of the first million I'd write. I mean, there are topics that can never be destubbed in popular culture - red shirts in Star Trek, a lot of individual episodes (Which can have synopses, but often nothing else), etc. And there are topics that are utter and irredeemable trainwrecks - anything having to do with continuity or cannon. (Star Trek, Star Wars, and Babylon 5 are the three exceptions that I can think of to this. And adding to the aggravation is that these NEVER die in AfD) But this isn't one of them. And I think understanding what articles we really can't source or really shouldn't write is a key step in fixing popular culture. -Phil

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: It's not like i'm exactly ''wrong''. -Jeff -- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else." - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.

On Nov 10, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: May I suggest that this debate highlights the problems with ontological categories of "notable" and "non-notable?" To my mind there are three categories of articles in terms of this. 1) Useful articles that provide context and verifiable, neutral information of general interest on a topic. 2) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, but that somebody is willing and capable of fixing. 3) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, and that furthmore have nobody who is willing and capable of fixing them. We keep 1, fix 2, and delete 3. If an article on a topic that got deleted by #3 comes along that is #2 or #1, we keep/fix it. If a topic goes so far as to be impossible to fix, we repeatedly delete it, and, sometimes, as a convenience to prevent admins from having to get into a fight on these things, protect blank. No muss, no fuss, no ontological concepts of notability. Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer(a)english.ufl.edu You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:23:05 -0500, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: I completely agree. I tried to change [[WP:N]] and its sub guidelines to include the fundamental basis for gauging inclusion - can we verify that the content is factually correct and neutrally stated from credible sources - but was shouted down. For me, notable is a shorthand for something that has enough critical attention to allow coverage within policy. As a sideline, individuals whose public exposure is limited to a single event should normally, in my view, be covered under that event, because otherwise we have "John Doe ran for mayor of New York in 2006 on an independent ticket and polled 200 votes on a platform of higher taxes for all. He was last heard of selling insurance in New Jersey", which is no kind of a biography. A cobweb, in oldspeak. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: There is a distinction to be made in the "Idol" shows where an inherent notability could be ascribed to the "Top 12". They certainly distinguish themselves from the hordes who make fools of themselves in the auditions. Being able to reach the Top 12 requires a certain effort in developing skills that is not there for contestants in most other reality shows. Ec