Re: [WikiEN-l] Process wonkery

On 9/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 23/09/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > >> The problem with the DRV is that the existence of a number of >> votes >> from obdurate "all schools are inherently notable" types means >> that >> vote counting gives no consensus, whereas a comparison of >> arguments >> from policy - specifically verifiability and hence the ability to >> cover the subject objectively - shows a clear delete. > > > This is a hardened attitude formed by people on VFD as it was who > wanted to delete all schools from Wikipedia below the notability > level > of Eton. That is: the process was pathological on both sides. > > So let's assume every school will be in Wikipedia on the same basis > that every pissweak or even no-longer-existent hamlet in the US > will > remain. What can be done then? > > * Is existence enough? Evidently. > * So we need proof of existence and basic verifiable information. > > There should be enough for a stub at the very least. If you want to > turn it into a list entry instead, the redirect needs to be in the > appropriate place. > > If you're bringing this to wikien-l to re-fight the school deletion > wars, you're probably not spending your time well. > > > - d. > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l Just for reference, we're looking at a worst case roughly 124,000 school stubs ( http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/ dt04_085.asp ) for the US. I understand those that disagree, but I think the categorical include pseudopolicy for schools makes sense. They're of immense interest to most parents, the school system has 72 million odd Americans in it, and categorical inclusionism here is not in any way throwing Wikipedia into disrepute or threatening our server load or diskspace.