[WikiEN-l] Notability and Fiction

[David Goodman]

Dear Sarah,

We obviously have very different views about these types of article. I
think we both have the sense to know we will not convince each other,
and I too do not want to argue the general issue here.  But the
obvious thing is to compromise on combination articles  with 1 or 2
para graph sections for characters and stop fighting each other.   The
argument against merging was quite specifically that the nature &
quality was so different there was no way of simply combining them.
The result of trying to delete rather than merge is that people like
me , who would be perfectly willing to get rid of the individual
articles will instead defend them: I do not care about the separation
into articles, but I do about keeping content. I encourage the
hot-heads on my side to not try to defend too much, and accept if they
can get good merges--perhaps you can do something of the sort also in
a reciprocal way.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Sarah Ewart<sarahewart at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:54 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The nonsense this can lead to is visible in a current AfD,
>> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin ,   where the nominator's
>> argument is that all the articles on all characters of the famous
>> australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted, because they
>> are either too long or too short. Most of them are in fact, too long
>> or too short , and need to be fixed, but there seems a substantial
>> sentiment in favor of deleting rather than fixing.
>
>
> This is incorrect.
>
> "the nominator's argument is that all the articles on all characters of the
> famous australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted"
>
> No, not all character articles were nominated. Notable characters such as
> Sally Fletcher, Pippa Ross, Charlie Buckton, Lance Smart and others were not
> nominated.
>
> "should be deleted, because they are either too long or too short. "
>
> This was not the nomination rationale at all. The comment about some being
> very long and others being very short was just a description of the
> articles, not a deletion rationale (of course, it would be an absurd reason
> to delete). The nominator's deletion rationale was based on notability,
> reliable sources and written in an "in universe" style.
>
> I'm not going to get into any debate here on en-l but please be more careful
> not to misrepresent AFD nominations currently in progress.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>