3 ms·

I'd agree that we don't want all of that stuff, but there's something very wrong with the filtering process when niche historical material gets purged while eve

I'd agree that we don't want all of that stuff, but there's something very wrong with the filtering process when niche historical material gets purged while every Buffy the Vampire Slayer character and episode has a detailed article.

tptacek 14y ago
Why? The content about those articles is verifiable, any given Buffy episode is clearly notable compared to, say, the "Fourlokotini" article that was submitted to Wikipedia in November 2010, and nobody is gaming Wikipedia to get Buffy content to the top of Google SERPs. What difference does it make if writeups of Buffy articles occupies one article or dozens?
- ramanujan 14y ago
  Because it reflects the fact that Wikipedia is currently written by the kind of Comic Book Guy who posts endlessly on Hacker News and edits Wikipedia. We are all Comic Book Guys to some extent when posting on the internet, but there are quite a few important deleted articles that are interesting only to non-Comic Book Guys. Inclusionism is about protecting their contributions from the depredations of rules lawyers who care more about "Notability" than whether a topic is included at all.
- Semiapies 14y ago
  Why is any random Buffy episode "clearly" more notable than a cocktail fad? More to the point, why is a Buffy episode more notable than an extant webcomic or a niche programming language or any number of perfectly worthwhile subjects that enthusiasts on Wikipedia merrily purge?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Subjects are notable by dint of being written about in reliable sources, which is something you can say about any Buffy episode and can't say about a cocktail that some guy in Camden made up one weekend and wrote about on Wikipedia as a joke.
    - Turing_Machine 14y ago
      'The "notability" argument from Wikipedia Deletionists is fascinating because it basically outsources judgements of significance to major media conglomerates.' -- opendna
    - Semiapies 14y ago
      You're answering a criticism of Wikipedia's standards by appealing to Wikipedia's standards. Further, you're certainly aware of your painfully obvious cherry-picking.
    - Semiapies 14y ago
      You're answering a criticism of Wikipedia's standards by appealing to Wikipedia's standards. Further, you're certainly aware of your painfully obvious cherry-picking.

tptacek 14y ago

Why? The content about those articles is verifiable, any given Buffy episode is clearly notable compared to, say, the "Fourlokotini" article that was submitted to Wikipedia in November 2010, and nobody is gaming Wikipedia to get Buffy content to the top of Google SERPs. What difference does it make if writeups of Buffy articles occupies one article or dozens?

ramanujan 14y ago
Because it reflects the fact that Wikipedia is currently written by the kind of Comic Book Guy who posts endlessly on Hacker News and edits Wikipedia. We are all Comic Book Guys to some extent when posting on the internet, but there are quite a few important deleted articles that are interesting only to non-Comic Book Guys. Inclusionism is about protecting their contributions from the depredations of rules lawyers who care more about "Notability" than whether a topic is included at all.
Semiapies 14y ago
Why is any random Buffy episode "clearly" more notable than a cocktail fad? More to the point, why is a Buffy episode more notable than an extant webcomic or a niche programming language or any number of perfectly worthwhile subjects that enthusiasts on Wikipedia merrily purge?
- tptacek 14y ago
  Subjects are notable by dint of being written about in reliable sources, which is something you can say about any Buffy episode and can't say about a cocktail that some guy in Camden made up one weekend and wrote about on Wikipedia as a joke.
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    'The "notability" argument from Wikipedia Deletionists is fascinating because it basically outsources judgements of significance to major media conglomerates.' -- opendna
  - Semiapies 14y ago
    You're answering a criticism of Wikipedia's standards by appealing to Wikipedia's standards. Further, you're certainly aware of your painfully obvious cherry-picking.
  - Semiapies 14y ago
    You're answering a criticism of Wikipedia's standards by appealing to Wikipedia's standards. Further, you're certainly aware of your painfully obvious cherry-picking.