On 1/17/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Firstly, I don't see how such a list could be
exhaustive. Secondly,
Yeah, it turns out there are a lot more than I thought. I had thought
there were a dozen or so. Looks to be more than a hundred. So in the
end it's probably a non-issue. Still worth listing the most prominent
ones perhaps.
your mistake (in my view) was in linking to their
websites - you
should have linked to their Wikipedia articles, just as we do in any
other list (if they aren't notable enough for Wikipedia articles, they
aren't notable enough to be in the list).
Yes, but the flaw in that reasoning is that lack of article does not
mean lack of notability. In most cases it's probably just that no one
can be bothered writing the article. I normally agree that it's much
preferable to link to the article about the website - but if there's
no article, do you redlink, weblink, or not link? The idea of creating
12 stubs about websites of perhaps borderline notability makes my
stomach churn.
Steve