Bryan Derksen wrote:
Nathan Awrich wrote:
I think there is a specific standard for the notability of fiction for good reason. I'm not sure that having been seen by millions of glazer over eyeballs is necessarily enough for something to be notable
Excuse me, but "glazed-over eyeballs?" These are our readers and our editors we're talking about. Please refrain from dismissing their interests as unimportant because you don't share them. It would be just as inappropriate to refer to the authors and users of our sports-related articles as "overmuscled jocks", or our politician-related articles as "politics weenies", or whatever other derogatory characterization one might come up with.
If you don't find a subject area interesting to you, just _leave it alone_.
As much as Nathan is radically off-base on this issue, I would probably be a little kinder about "glazed-over eyeballs." He's talking about a medical phenomenon that can happen to any reader on any subject. It can even happen on a favorable topic when the quality of the writing is execrable.
I get it on policy pages, and one big problem with them is that the reasonable people leave them alone. I read this at [[Wikipedia:Notability]]: /"Presumed"/ means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors." Fearing that they haven't confused us enough the writers add this footnote: "Non-notability is a re_buttab_le presumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuttable_presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof." I guess that establishes that it does not take a long article to make eyes glaze over. This is a definition of "presumed" that is contrary to the normal use of the word. A policy (or guideline) that takes such liberties with the language only merits ridicule.
As I see it guidelines are quasi-policy documents without enough support to make it as policy. They should never be viewed as enforceable, and should give wide latitude to those who would approach the subject differently
I have a hard time believing that _none_ of them are reliable sources.
Unless you meant perhaps peer-reviewed journal articles?
I grant that much of pop culture material is ephemeral, but that is precisely why we should view it more favorably. By chronicling these we give future generations a much greater insight into today's society. In topics such as this "peer-reviewed journal articles" are a nonsensical criterion. They are little more than excuse to support destructive behaviour. The concept has its place in some fields of learning, but not here.
I wouldn't go undeleting them unless you first get approval on policy changes. I'm sure the fan-types will support you, but the community in general seems to be leaning away from your position.
That doesn't seem to be the case over on the talk page of WP:EPISODE. So if the community in general hasn't approving of the guideline that was used as justification for deleting them, they can be deleted, but they can't be undeleted until everyone agrees? Double standard, no thanks. The "default" position should be to refrain from deleting when in doubt.
Indeed. These policies and guidelines have a habit of popping up all over with the support only of those interested in developing the statement in question. The simple fact that it is there in no way implies that it has community support. It just means that most of the community probably doesn't know that it's there. To say that this policy cruft needs to meet exceptional criteria to be deleted is to pervert all notions of fair play. If the people who support this kind of cruft weren't so fearful that the community might strike it down they would have no problem with a voting process that remains open even after a guideline has been seemingly adopted. If the level of support falls below a pre-determined level some months later it would simply cease to be applicable. It often takes months before affected editors even notice that a guideline has been adopted.
Ec