[WikiEN-l] Notability and ski resorts (was: Newbie and not-so-newbie biting)

[Surreptitiousness]

Charles Matthews wrote:
> The question is 
> more whether lurkers should be stakeholders. Traditionally what is 
> respected is showing the better way, rather than compiling a wishlist.
>   
The best way to solve whether lurkers should be stakeholders is to ask 
them. Showing the better way would be fine.  Have we agreed on a better 
way yet?
> Why? You would be better advised to draft in userspace rather than just 
> type straight into the box, but I don't understand why you think it 
> doesn't still work in principle.
>   
I can't do now what I did then.  IP's cannot create new articles, and 
you have to wait four days after creating an account to create a new 
article.  You just lost me. It doesn't still work either in principle or 
in practise.
>> The point I 
>> was making was that we were not the high-ground; we don't exist to 
>> publish academic research.  
>>     
> No, we exist to regurgitate it.
>   
Hmm. Not sure I agree, but I think we'd head into a primary versus 
secondary sourcing argument. I'd certainly argue our mission would be to 
contextualise and explain the research through recourse to secondary 
sources, rather than to simply regurgitate it. I think there's a viable 
argument that regurgitating it would fall foul of NOT NEWS.
>
> The closure was a compromise, rather than a consensus emerging. 
> ([[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 11#Deans of 
> Lincoln]], for mavens.) While "Dean" and "Lincoln" were both deemed 
> individually ambiguous, one side only was disambiguated. But not for a 
> specific clash. So in a sense I lost the argument, it seems. But it 
> could have been worse.
>
>   
Hmm.  Yes, interesting debate.  That's one of the reasons I avoid CFD 
these days. I think a major point that got missed is that no-one asked 
the question of at what point would context not do the disambiguating.  
Only then would there be a need for disambiguating. There's been a lot 
of thought about CFD over the years, and how to address the 
shortcomings, but nothing has ever gotten nailed down.  There's a 
conflict between consensus can change and speedy deletion criteria as 
currently installed at the moment, and there's also a lot of confusion 
as to what categories actually are and how they work.  I think a lot of 
the issues with categories are down to the fact that we never nailed 
down what they were for when they were implemented, and now everyone has 
a different view on how to categorise. I still can't work out how, if 
you are looking at an article in Category:Deans of Lincoln, it won't be 
clear what Lincoln it is.  But I've had this argument a number of times: 
people seem to like standards just to have standards.  If a parent 
category says Lincoln, Lincolnshire, so must all sub-cats. Otherwise, it 
looks untidy.