Wikipedia talk:Ability to be described
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I was just feeding a troll. Trolling hidden. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My view
This assumes that everything which can't get past stub status is not worthy of an article. That is not necessarily the case. If you can only describe its existence in reliable sources, then it should be deleted, but that doesn't need another guideline to do. This would be better as an essay. -Amarkov blahedits 17:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Well,
What you should do now is find such articles and merge them. If an article can never be more than a stub, it is likely to be improved in both context and informativeness by merging it into a related article. For instance, a List of weapons in HALO can give more meaningful information and comparison than a group of stubs on each individual weapon. Use redirects as necessary, and see WP:FICT for long-standing precedent. The same tends to apply to TV show participants (merge to the show) and parents of celebrities (merge to the celeb). There are always exceptions, of course. >Radiant< 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good point.. I'll add a merging clause to the proposal. -- Chris is me 19:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be a whole lot of interest in this proposal (as judged by the lack of reactions here). Perhaps you should consider adding the concept to an existing guideline rather than putting it on its own page? >Radiant< 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... I originally thought of putting the idea into WP:N, but then I realized that this is sort of the reverse of WP:N... While N does not allow articles that are not sufficiently important into Wikipedia because it's hard to write a good article on them, this proposal actually sets the bar at "can one write a sourced article" rather than "no article on x since you can't likely write an article on it". (srry, tired...) -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 05:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be a whole lot of interest in this proposal (as judged by the lack of reactions here). Perhaps you should consider adding the concept to an existing guideline rather than putting it on its own page? >Radiant< 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
I'm not really sure what the purpose of this proposal is. As a frequent participation in AFD, and a nominator of >100 articles for deletion processes, I'm a big believer in notability. I believe notability gives us the mandate to delete articles which really don't belong in a credible encyclopedia, but which can't get nuked by other policies alone. This proposal casts all that into murky water - if it's non-notable, but a long article could be written about it (and there are examples of this), then it can be kept. Also, beware of instruction creep. YechielMan 07:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
