Well, Im the admin who removed the speedy, and it was a clear
mis-tagging, but for what strikes the casual reader as esoteric
subjects it helps to be very explicit and not assume they will even
follow the links, let alone use google. And this is not really the
place to complain about other editors.
On Feb 7, 2008 9:41 PM, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I can understand Jimbo's plaintive edit comment,
because I've been
beset by the rabid prod-ninjas. See, for instance,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westar_Institute&action=histo…
where my article, with four cites from two websites, was marked less
than 3 minutes after I started it. OTOH, I see that his article is
notability-tagged:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Reality&diff=182707…
There is a deficiency in the Wikipedia media model in that it rewards
those who avoid tabular representation and expand each line into a
separate article. The notion that verifiability, not to mention
notability, is enough justify a separate article encourages this sort
of padding-- and it is padding, because there's no extra information
conveyed. I've been doing a lot of lighthouse articles, and really the
only thing that saves them from meriting this sort of treatment is
that each of them has a enough history to require a separate narrative
for each.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG