From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
JAY JG said:
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com Gregory Maxwell said:
When it comes down to it, if we only use the criteria of "verifiable and NPOV" we end up with the prohibition on original research as being the only real control on what can go into wikipedia after a little tidying up.
That's basically it.
Fortunately, Wikipedia's notability policies help keep out much of the trivia your proposal would allow. Unfortunately, these policies are much clearer in the case of articles about individuals than they are in the case of articles about schools.
Non-notability has been rejected as a criterion for deletion.
By you, perhaps. Clearly not by many others.
Inappropriate biographical entries can be rejected on grounds of vanity.
And for the large number that cannot be rejected on the grounds of vanity, the various other notability criteria explicitly outlined in [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] serve well.
Humans tend to be a lot less intrinsically encyclopedic, as individuals, than institutions or even cultural manifestations such as the infamous Pokemon.
Define "intrinsically encyclopedic".
Jay.