3 ms·
Have you read the article? It reads like a blog entry rather than an entry to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has been criticized before for not being well researche
by acg 17y ago
Have you read the article? It reads like a blog entry rather than an entry to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has been criticized before for not being well researched and factual. The problem with the article is it may as well be someone's opinion on the WM. I'm all for more pages but this does not read well. My point is if you care, make it read like it belongs in there. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an internet archive it's supposed to be factual.
- noarchy 17y agoI am all for cleaning up bad content. But I think we have to make a distinction between a Wikipedia entry with poor structure or citations, and this notion of an "unworthy topic" As for this entry, specifically, I have read it. And I'd go back to what I mentioned about cleaning up bad content. The article can be fixed. It does not need to be eliminated.
- nopassrecover 17y agoThere are flags that can note the article is poorly written so that noone mistakes it as authoritative in its current state. Indeed in this manner people interested in the subject can be attracted to improve it.