3 ms·
Why do you think it's so bad? I think it's a good thing that helps with the signal to noise ratio. Nothing in the Notability article [1] seems unreasonable to m
by mangodrunk 10y ago
Why do you think it's so bad? I think it's a good thing that helps with the signal to noise ratio. Nothing in the Notability article [1] seems unreasonable to me, such as ensuring that the content is verifiable by reliable sources. It seems that Wikipedia is already too relaxed on this guideline.
Do you have an example of a good article being removed for that?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
- contingencies 10y agosignal to noise ratio This is frequently raised as a concern but I believe the reality is that, as a user, you're not going to be clicking on obscure-character-in-single-cartoon or random-person-who-has-done-little-of-public-significance unless you are actually searching for them in the first place, usually on an external search engine. Therefore, you are interested in either reading what is there or improving it. Why not let them be? There is ~no cost to Wikipedia in doing so. Anything with verifiable citations should be kept. The negative affect on frustrated early contributors resulting from content deletion (many quit) is far more important than the nominal quality enhancement, when considered in light of real usage.