On 2/24/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/25/07, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Standard practice has diverged considerably from the official line, and I agree with Phil that we need to amend WP:N in particular to be more accommodating of content where the subject can at least be verified to exist (e.g., webcomics, Battlestar Galactica episodes, marginally notable real people).
I can confirm that 30 million chemical elements exist.
Huh?
Given that old enough census data is published with can confirm rather a lot of people exist as well. Confirming somthing exists doesn't mean much.
I said "be more accommodating"; I don't mean to imply that existence is sufficient. A measure of common sense when assessing an article's reliability combined with a little looser official standards for notability is the main thing (i.e., accepting that some topics that people want to see in Wikipedia will have few good sources but keeping rather than deleting them is still a plus to the overall quality of Wikipedia).
There is another problem with what you propose. Check out the talk pages of articles releated to [[Watchmen]] (or the trivia secetion on a lot of our lower quality articles). These fans likely know a lot about the subject but the conflicting interptritiations. The sexuality section on [[Rorschach (comics)]] can be a fine source of black humor.
The problem I see there is failure to follow WP:WAF. Forcing that material into an out-of-universe perspective would bring out the best from what is indeed rough going in its present form; it would bring out the fact that conflicting interpretations exist and get much closer to NPOV than it is now.
-Sage