On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/11/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Anthony,
On 12/9/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Yes, you've confused what I've said. I think we should add more *objective* criteria to the speedy deletion candidates, not *subjective* ones.
If totaly objective criteria don't turn up much outside maths
I find it hard to believe that we can't come up with objective criteria for articles that everyone agrees should be deleted. Verifiability, for instance, is an objective criterion.
Verifiability is necessary, but not sufficient, for an encyclopaedic article. But not everyone agrees on that (IIRC, you yourself have gone to great --- perhaps even "extreme" --- lengths to show your disagreement).
Verifiability is in some ways quite a harsh requirement. It was what got [[yoism]] deleted.
-- geni
I'm not familiar with that case. It seems like you're saying that there is non-verifiable information that should nonetheless be included in the encyclopedia? I highly doubt you could convince me to agree with that.
Anthony
No. I'm just saying that verifiable thing can be a lot harsher than many people think.
You can read all about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yoism
And yes this did go through deletion review as well.
-- geni