On 11/20/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
Websites and webpages are a much different story than
people. I can't
think of any reason to ever have an entire article about a web page.
Maybe you could prove me wrong, though.
For websites on the other hand it really depends on how longstanding
the site is. But if the site is longstanding enough to have been
written about in acceptable third-party sources then it's probably big
enough to include in an encyclopedia.
Duck and Cover is definitely something I'd like to see in Wikipedia.
I'm not sure how much *could* be said about it that would fall under
the rules of NPOV, verifiability, and no original research (in fact,
though it claims to have been made in 1998 Internet Archive only goes
back to 2004), but assuming the facts in the article could be fact
checked, I think it should be included (and therefore, it is notable).
I wasn't quite expecting to, but I entirely agree with you here.
--
Sam