From: "Tony Sidaway"
<minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
JAY JG said:
From:
"Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
Gregory Maxwell said:
When it comes down to it, if we only use the criteria of "verifiable
and NPOV" we end up with the prohibition on original research as
being the only real control on what can go into wikipedia after a
little tidying up.
That's basically it.
Fortunately, Wikipedia's notability policies help keep out much of the
trivia your proposal would allow. Unfortunately, these policies are
much clearer in the case of articles about individuals than they are
in the case of articles about schools.
Non-notability has been rejected as a criterion for deletion.
By you, perhaps. Clearly not by many others.
Inappropriate biographical entries can be rejected on
grounds of vanity.
And for the large number that cannot be rejected on the grounds of vanity,
the various other notability criteria explicitly outlined in
[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] serve well.
Humans tend to be a lot less intrinsically
encyclopedic, as individuals,
than institutions or even cultural manifestations such as the infamous
Pokemon.
Define "intrinsically encyclopedic".
Jay.