Bryan Derksen wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
You are welcome to B, but I will likely R and
start to D. Secondary
sources or not. That applies to asteroids too, but they can always be
listified later.
Are you serious? I mention asteroids and now the articles about them are
in your sights for removal too, "secondary sources or not"?
I also mentioned dead congressmen, wee little towns, and books. How
about those?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I believe you misunderstood "secondary sources or not". That's
likely my
fault for failing to word my point clearly. What I mean is, whether an
article is standalone, merged, or removed should hinge on one
question-"How much secondary source material is available on this
subject?" If the answer is "plenty", we can write a comprehensive
article, and should have one. If the answer is "a little", we should
find a suitable parent article. If the answer is "none or
namedrops/entries in directories only", it may or may not merit mention
in a parent article, but definitely shouldn't be standalone.