3 ms·

> Do you really think that Wikipedia is the best possible place to display that content on the whole internet? That's not a very good question. The best possib

> Do you really think that Wikipedia is the best possible place to display that content on the whole internet? That's not a very good question. The best possible place to display that content is obviously reproducing the episode itself as part of an archive so that it can be reviewed by anyone who sees a citation of it. But that presumes the question is valid, which it isn't: why must there be only one best possible place to display the content? The Internet does not require unique instances of content; displaying it in one place does not mean it cannot be displayed in another. There are valid reasons to delete. If Wikipedia is unable to handle the storage requirements, that is a good reason to delete. Demoting an article because it's not a secondary source is reasonable. "I don't understand why this should be on Wikipedia" is not a valid reason to remove it.

sparkzilla 12y ago
Just because there is space to write about something, does not mean that readers want to read it in that format. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's policies and software are not built to handle the data surrounding TV shows (as just one example). Even Wikia handles secondary information like news and gossip (which are important information for people who are interested in the show) better. It is, in fact, the inclusionists who are saying that there is only one place to view the content -- the want everything on Wikipedia. The original comment I replied to said that the intention is to create the "sum of all knowledge". Trying to shoehorn everything into Wikipedia, into formats that the information not designed for, devalues the focus and content of the encyclopedic topics, and makes it harder for better quality content elsewhere on the web to get attention.