Merging is also good for a very important reason: It helps the reader find content. The problem w these stray "cruft" articles is that few people ever see them. They're rarely well linked together, and often a number of articles end up written on a very similar subject, all of them in some way redundant and difficult to find. The best thing for EVERYBODY is merging/redirecting tiny articles (w/o loosing good content) and then allowing them to spin off into their own articles again when the "hub" article grows too big
Jack (Sam Spade)
Just to be clear, I'm not 100% sure this is my position. :-)
My position most certainly is that, *fortunately*, a lot of really difficult issues *are* resolved by verifiability and no original research. Those two rules knock out a huge swath of certifiable nonsense without even breaking a sweat.
There is now a magazine article (Florida Trend) which gives my mother's name, and tells about the school which she founded, where I attended as a child. This information is now verifiable (it is in a magazine) and the original research was done by a professional journalist (plus I can personally vouch for it being true, for whatever that may be worth).
Even so, I do not think we should have an article about my mother. She's a dear sweet wonderful person, to be sure, but not encyclopedic.
This is a case where I'm going to go with Kat Walsh (Mindspillage) and say that I'm a "merge-ist". Does the tidbit about my mom's school deserve a separate article? Absolutely not. Does it belong somewhere in the encyclopedia? Sure. Where? In the article about me.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l