Lee Pilich wrote:
Delirium wrote:
>I don't think it would cut nearly enough out.
For example, a short
>article listing my place of birth, high school attended, and university
>attended is easily verifiable through publically available records.
Then it could be deleted on the grounds that it would
never be more than a
stub (I don't know if it's formalised anywhere, but deleting things for
that reason has been pretty widely done in the past).
Better IMO is to redirect him to [[List of foos]],
where "foo" means whatever got him on in the first place
(residents of his hometown, Wikipedians trying to make a point [*], etc).
A while ago, [[Gnasher]] was redirected to [[Dennis the Menace (UK)]]
because it too would (in all probability) never be more than a stub.
(This is the last example that I recall coming up on the list.)
That is the right thing to do, not to delete [[Gnasher]];
if you delete it, then somebody will come along and create it again.
[*] Actually, if the article is created merely to make a point,
then I don't mind particularly if it ends up deleted.
I don't care much for articles created to make a point,
even when I still have more hope for them than /most/ people do.
But if it's created for an earnest reason, even a bad one,
then it will come up again and so should be redirected someplace better.
-- Toby