On Sep 12, 2005, at 10:50 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
Why is it a Bad Thing to lose /Trek/-only contributions? Not just for /Trek/, but for anything where fans get a little too enthusiastic to judge encyclopaedic worth. Do we need a separate article for every planet mentioned in passing in the /Star Wars/ movies (or in the novels, or cartoons, or comics, or --- it'll happen --- fanfic)?
Fanfic is for the most part not verifiable, due to its extremely ephemeral nature, although I have supported a few highly notable fanfics getting articles - most memorably the Very Secret Diaries. Every planet mentioned in passing? No. I've also never said articles that are perma-stubs should be kept. I think perma-stub is a very good reason for deletion.
On the other hand, why not have full descriptions of every episode of Star Trek, and every character who's appeared in more than one episode? Why not have an article on every actor or actress who has had a substantive speaking part in a Star Trek episode? It harms nothing, and has a meaningful benefit.
Yes. I do believe that any article on a topic that is verifiable, reasonably assured to remain verifiable in ten years, and capable of having more than a stub written about it should have an article. What reason is there not to do this? Disk space isn't an issue. Naming conventions can and have been sorted out in the past. What's the reason not to do this?
-Snowspinner