Make up? I'm not sure I understand you. I'm not going
to argue whether or not my usage of the word biography
was entirely correct, the vantiy page meaning is
clear, they cover details of people's personal lives.
I don't really understand you point.
Mark
--- Phil Sandifer <sandifer(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"A page dedicated to a girlfriend, a family pet,
or
a social group at a
high school can also be a vanity page." -
[[Wikipedia:Vanity page]]
I'd take that as pretty good evidence that vanity
pages aren't just
biography, actually.
Did you have any other policy you want to make up,
or are you done for
this debate?
-Snowspinner
On Oct 30, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
The vanity criteria are well established and
apply
only to biography. I don't see the connection at
all.
I oppose taking criteria that were designed for
biography and applying them to places, buildings,
artwork, or other things.
Mark
--- John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around