Hmmm... some interesting issues being raised below. Just for argument
sake: what happens if an "un-notable" entry makes it to Wikipedia?
Would it be a grave error? Notability, after all, is mostly related to
context. Would Shakespeare have been as "noted" a writer, if he had to
be born in, say, Upper Egypt?
I think the problem lies elsewhere. The trouble is: people or
institutions being packaged to be what they are not. Or bloated claims
about institutions or organisations or individuals.
Rather than just delete entries for being un-notable, perhaps we need
to find ways to ensure that what's written is both accurate and
tallies with the reality. --FN
On 08/01/07, Steve <subsume(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe this is a rookie opinion, but I think that
the AFD process tends
to
attract people who are focused on keeping
wikipedia "uncluttered" and
"relevant". They're always going to "err on the side of delete"
and
that's
that. You can present anything to the people at
AFD, but its a systemic
habit. Those aren't just going to undo because of one person's polite
suggestion.
While I happen to think deletionists could be restrained greatly without
loss to Wikipedia (since the articles they're deleting are hardly well
connected and widely viewed), I'm just one opinion. Over the years I've
noticed a kind of institutional insecurity grow in Wikipedia, over fears
our
pedia is being perceived as full of unverified
internet rabble.
-S
--
FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
http://www.goa-india.org http://feeds.goa-india.org/index.php
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l