[WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

Thu Nov 30 16:15:58 UTC 2006

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:36:05 -0500, "Laurence Parry"
<greenreaper at hotmail.com> wrote:

>Of course, PafCon doesn't have a website because it's a fictional 
>convention, but you get the idea. If Wikipedia doesn't want to write about 
>topics, a good alternative is to do some kind of portal to direct people to 
>those who *do* want to write about it, as long as they are doing so 
>competently. That's helpful for the user because they get the information 
>they're looking for, and it's helpful for Wikipedia because it avoids 
>repeated creation of pages about "non-notable" topics (which inevitably 
>result in a certain proportion of angst-filled AfDs that burn some of our 
>most dedicated contributors out).

I have absolutely no problem with this.  The same battle is being
fought right now in respect of an article on Star Trek ranks *not*
mentioned in the films and shows.  Is the concept documentable?  May
well be.  Does that mean we should list every one and picture the
insignia?  Hell no.  There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding
in respect of this kind of content; if the concept is verifiable that
does not make every example of it worthy of inclusion, it means we can
have a referenced article on the concept.  And then send people
somewhere the fans can write whatever the hell they like, for more
information.  I don't see any downside to this approach, other than
that "our coverage of foo" becomes less complete.  Which, in many
circumstances, is precisely as it should be.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG