On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Anthony<[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Summit <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> My own take on the deletionist/inclusionist divide (which, >> admittedly, has little if anything to do with Wikipedia's >> inclusion policies as currently prescribed) is to ask: would >> anyone, anywhere in the world (other than the author) ever be >> interested in reading an encyclopedic treatment of this topic? >> (And in the case of Bo the first dog, the answer is pretty >> clearly "yes".) >> > > I recently checked Wikipedia for an article on my local library, and found > that it was deleted. If Wikipedia isn't "too" deletionist, then it's > "improperly" deletionist. > > C'mon, a library isn't notable?
We'd be more effective if we had notability guidelines that explicitly supported expansion of notability to allow more and more granular articles over time. Any monument or building or park that people invested thousands of hours into, or that people from far away come to see, or that thousands of people use a year, is notable in its own right. Sometimes we address the issue of maintaining balance and quality as a perpetual fight over lines in the sand, when it's an important effort worth continual discussion and refinement. As the number of editors interested in a topic area grows -- something that happens as WP includes more and more locally-notable entries, for instance -- the capacity to maintain quality in that area grows as well. Sj _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
