I think that is a very dismissive misreading of the discussion.
Some people have it in their heads that "appears in reliable sources equates to
article-worthiness", but the problem here is that the doings of celebrities is
covered in excruciating detial by the media, including what tey eat, the clothes they
wear, and so on. Same for some politicians, such as every Thanksgiving some poor sod gets
to stand outside the White House gate and breathlessly report what is on the
President's table, or at XMas the reports of what the First Family bought each other.
Reliably sourced? Yes. Encyclopedic worthiness of "White House Thanksgiving 2009
Dinner Table" ? None at all.
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:02:46 +0100
From: tom(a)tommorris.org
To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 at 10:15, Svip wrote:
I can't believe _I_ am not the ultimate ruler
on what is valuable
enough to get on Wikipedia. It seems most of the delete comments on
the Justin Bieber article are mostly people who dislike Justin Bieber.
Surely Lady Gaga on Twitter[3] should be deleted as well? Or perhaps
that is different, because they like Lady Gaga more than they like
Justin Bieber.
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter
To be fair, 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' is also up for deletion too. In both the
Kutcher and Bieber case, there's a lot of "I don't like it, therefore it
can't be notable!"
I just cannot see any legitimate argument for deletion being presented. They all
basically boil down to "don't like it!"
--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l