An good article that is properly defended is less likely to be deleted. I have seen many worthy articles fail because there are no outside references, and the claims are either exorbitant or mild. You can not expect others to know, unless you tell them.
On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ian Tresman wrote:
Technically all Wikipedia editors are outside their field since they are all generally anonymous. That leaves common sense which is generally described in WP:NOTABLE.
That is a remarkably illogical non-sequitur. Being anonymous does not imply that one loses all connection with his fields of interest.
No, it means that it is not verifiable.
I've invited experts in their field to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, only to have it vetoed by an anonymous editor who claim to be a professor and an expert in his field.
You would think that two verifiable experts in their field would have sway over an anonymous unverifiable editor.
This makes so little sense that I wonder whether we are talking about the same thing. What I have been talking about is having editors with a common interest having the strongest influence on determining the notability of an article. This has nothing to do with inviting experts to contribute. It has to do with ignoramuses using their cookie-cutter interpretation of notability (or verifiability ) to delete articles about which they know nothing.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l