4 ms·
Yes, but in my experience, this applies more to people than to some of the topics discussed in the article. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a city, town,
by chadash 3y ago
Yes, but in my experience, this applies more to people than to some of the topics discussed in the article. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a city, town, village or hamlet in the US without a wikipedia page (as an example, take a look at Jack Wade, Alaska [1]), for example. And I don't imagine that rare moth species articles get taken down. But you have to have some kind of policy in place so that every individual on the planet doesn't have a wikipedia page.
[1] On Google maps view, i can't maybe 8 houses there? https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jack+Wade,+AK+99732/@64.1519419,-141.4630071,448a,35y,3.16t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x5149e998873be075:0x2f1a9ca47f03bf1b!8m2!3d64.1526072!4d-141.4604683!16s%2Fm%2F0480bm5?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jack+Wade,+AK+99732/@64.15.... But it's on wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Wade,_Alaska https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Wade,_Alaska
- thepangolino 3y ago[dead]
- bombcar 3y agoAt some point a long time ago someone imported all the US Census data into Wikipedia, creating a page for every town reported. It strikes me strange that those are considered "notable enough" mainly because they've been in Wikipedia long enough, but new articles have to fight. Petty bureaucrats can only show their power by saying no, if they say yes it's as if they weren't there.