Then I believe both of you have just admitted that "notability" is a
valid criteria for inclusion/deletion. After all, just try reading the
definition of vanity according to Wikipedia Mark linked to.
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see nothing wrong with his position. There are
multiple deletion
criteria available. Each has its own definition. We can define a
vanity page in terms of self-promotion or self-glorification.
Verifiability is a different and independent criterion. Using the
description of one criterion to determine the applicability of a
different one is illogical.
Ec
John Lee wrote:
> Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity pages be eligible for
> deletion if the information therein was 100% verifiable and factual?
> Delirium said that this isn't a strawman because *we get 100%
> verifiable articles such as vanity pages which are deleted*. You
> argue in favour of their deletion, because they are vanity pages -
> what constitutes a vanity page? A page written by someone seeking
> glorification? But, why, the information's verifiable! Isn't
> Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of human knowledge? I honestly
> don't understand your paradoxical - dare I say, hypocritical - stance
> on this.
>
> John Lee
> ([[User:Johnleemk]])
>
> Mark Richards wrote:
>
>> It's a straw man because you are taking the case in
>> dispute (schools) and claiming that if we keep
>> schools, we will have to keep an article on each
>> school band member.
>>
>> There are existing rules to deal with vanity articles,
>> and to the extent that we have a problem with them,
>> they have been deleted as vanity.
>>
>> Let's not confuse the issues of schools with some
>> hypothetical deluge of articles about cheerleaders or
>> dead cats.
>>
>> If I have presented my case as an extreme one, then I
>> have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do not
>> support an article on each high school band member. I
>> doubt that you could really write a verifiable and
>> factual article on them that was not a vanity page
>> anyway.
>>
>> It's not that these people are not notable, they
>> certianly are to some people, it is the fact that
>> these would be vanity articles, I am not proposing to
>> remove this criteria for deletion.
>