On 2/15/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You're talking nonsense. The correct amount of each view to include depends on the inherent notability of the view, not on how much other sources talk about it (there is a correlation there, certainly, but it's far from a simple one).
I was just reading the logorrhea at the top of WP:N (which, with its initial nutshellism simplicity confounded by copious footnotes and circular auxiliary definitions which raise more questions than they answer, quite frankly verges on self-parody[1], but that's a separate issue).
Inherent? I don't see how a more *exherent* set of criteria could be chosen.
—C.W.
[1] Significance shall be demonstrated through thine coverage, and the level of thine coverage shall be significant. Trivial thine coverage shalt not be, nor needeth it to be exclusive, provided that it is at least significant. Usenet postings from 1995 are right out. Once significance, being the required level of coverage, be established, then thou mayst in good faith lobbyeth in yonder AFD fracas for swift retention of thine presumedly notable topic, and thy deletionist foes, being time-wasting trolls in mine sight, shalt politely go fuck themselfs.