If so, then even in what we think we do best, we are incomplete. It's time to stop worrying about having too much; we have too little. I'm sure there are hundreds of shows from the early years of television that need treatment. I know there are hundreds of classic novels that are merely mentioned in a list.
I have a suggestion: nobody be permitted to propose deleting more articles than they create, or removing more content than they write afresh.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Judson Dunn wrote:
Anyway, I much prefer Utility as a criteria. Would people use an article about cholesterol, yes. Would they use one about Bulbasaur? yes. Would they use one about a Leica D-lux 3, yes. Would they use one about every fire hydrant in Pancake, TX? No.
Luckily this is solved by our other inclusion policies already, it would be trivial to find reliable sources for the first three, much harder, if it's even possible, for the fourth. We don't really need any new policy, we just need to get rid of notability for good.
Certainly, we may find it difficult to imagine that anyone might find a reliable source for those fire hydrants, but if they do we must respect that.
So there really is a place called Pancake, Texas (population 11), but we don't even mention it in our article on [[Coryell County, Texas]], or even that the post office was once named "Bush". I haven't checked if we have articles on Pancake, PA or Pancake, WV, or the historical Pancake, NV.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l