Talk:3rd Stone

Names
I am not sure why certain names without articles are being treated differently to others. Is there a guideline I've missed? Just because there is no article for them, does that mean the names can't be used until articles are created? If so, fine. dougweller (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there's an actual guideline, but the convention for potentially long and/or incomplete lists is to only include its notable members (generally but not exclusively taken as those with wikipedia articles). This convention is to some extent supported by Template:Cleanup-laundry which lists "not notable" as a reason for removing list items. There's little point in adding further names when the reader is unable to find out more information about them to provide those names with context. Doing so only clutters the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree about lists. But look at Castleden's Ghits on Google Scholar and, a quick search,  and  - like Darvill, he doesn't have an article, but if either of them had articles they'd survive an AfD, right? Yes, I'd like to write articles for them, and I may do when I have time and aren't trying to deal with a lot of OR. dougweller (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Two points: (i) WP:NOTE isn't about how much you've written, but how much has been written about you & (ii) regardless of underlying notability, if there's no article to link to, then the author name means very little (the reader can't even tell if the author in question is a solid scholar or an infamous crank). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why I linked to a review by Juilan Richards - more reviews: and, , , , . As I read WP:RED, the redlink should be replaced. dougweller (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)