I agree with Ian Tresman. Many 'editors' are too quick to try to cut articles that do not warrant removal. 'not-notable' is just one of the things people seem to like to say. I don't think it should be so hard to create content, and it should not be so easy to get it deleted. People will *always* bitch about how crummy the quality of WP is, and they will always be wrong.
Just MHO.
Dan.
On 17/09/2007, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
At 11:46 17/09/2007, you wrote:
On 17/09/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The magazine Pensée is notable, and nobody is questioning that. The article brought up for deletion was "Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)", a "special series of ten issues of the magazine Pensée" devoted to a particular topic.
I think the interesting and idiosyncratic assumption that "all published books are suitable for an article" kicks in here. Do non-English projects make this same assumption? Does it vary between fiction and nonfiction? Enquiring minds want to know...
If Wikipedia were a paper-based encyclopedia, then I think there is no doubt that there would be certain selection criteria. Wikipedia is not paper, and consequently has decided that if it is (a) Verifiable (b) (non-trivial) Reliable sources, (c) written neutrally, then it is acceptable.
I noted that Wikipedia has 1000 article on all 1000 of the "top" asteroids (and many more), few of which are any more notable pieces of rock than another. In this instance, Wikipedia is acting as a catalogue, and many of the articles are merely "stubs". But that's fine by me, I'm sure asteroid #547 is notable to someone.
Likewise, I see no problem Wikipedia summarising every book that was ever published. It already summarised every episode of many obscure TV programmes.
Is this encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not your typical encyclopedia.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l