4 ms·
It seems to boil down to opinion. To an extent it has to. Though even when there's dozens of citations possible or articles on paper, and verifiable, entries ca
by oldcynic 9y ago
It seems to boil down to opinion. To an extent it has to. Though even when there's dozens of citations possible or articles on paper, and verifiable, entries can go because of an admin opinion. (I've no doubt this isn't the policy, but it sure seems like it sometimes. The one time I started to read into it I gave up.)
Plenty that really doesn't seem to pass the sniff test manages to stick around. Though I'd prefer too many edge cases than too few. There's already a mechanism to mark pages with a caveat for needing cleanup or expansion after all.
- ghaff 9y ago>It seems to boil down to opinion. To an extent it has to. There are certainly plenty of cases that would seem to be at one extreme or the other. National political figures, professional sports teams, etc. etc. are clearly notable. The random person whose name is only visible on the Internet on their own website probably not. But in between those poles are published but not well-known books, minor league baseball players, little-seen low-budget movies, random board games, amateur bands etc. Whether, for example, every book that has ever been published could potentially have its own Wikipedia article is ultimately an opinion/philosophy about whether there should be some limits on content that's just very obscure on Wikipedia even if it's theoretically verifiable to at least some degree.
- thriftwy 9y agoI just din't see any value in such limits. Do you? As long as article is well-written and not a self-promotion, it should be in.