On Sep 12, 2005, at 10:50 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
Why is it a Bad Thing to lose /Trek/-only contributions? Not just
for /Trek/, but for anything where fans get a little too
enthusiastic to judge encyclopaedic worth. Do we need a separate
article for every planet mentioned in passing in the /Star Wars/
movies (or in the novels, or cartoons, or comics, or --- it'll
happen --- fanfic)?
Fanfic is for the most part not verifiable, due to its extremely
ephemeral nature, although I have supported a few highly notable
fanfics getting articles - most memorably the Very Secret Diaries.
Every planet mentioned in passing? No. I've also never said articles
that are perma-stubs should be kept. I think perma-stub is a very
good reason for deletion.
On the other hand, why not have full descriptions of every episode of
Star Trek, and every character who's appeared in more than one
episode? Why not have an article on every actor or actress who has
had a substantive speaking part in a Star Trek episode? It harms
nothing, and has a meaningful benefit.
Yes. I do believe that any article on a topic that is verifiable,
reasonably assured to remain verifiable in ten years, and capable of
having more than a stub written about it should have an article. What
reason is there not to do this? Disk space isn't an issue. Naming
conventions can and have been sorted out in the past. What's the
reason not to do this?
-Snowspinner