Wikipedia talk:Ability to be described

<!--Er, what should I do now? -- Chris is  me 21:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- This propsal accomplishes nothing that cannot be accmplished using WP:N, either in its current form, or in some modified form. WP:N needs to be better enforced (I don't think its being properly enforced at the moment), and this policy proposal will make WP:N harder to enforce.Librarylefty 01:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that you have made very few edits in the namespace, and otehr than voting "delete" on dzens of AFD debates, you haven't help the community much. Sorry to not WP:AGF, but why are you here (no malice intended)? -- Chris is  me 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought it was a proposed replacement to notability. There are quite a few people who disagree with the notability policies, I'm sure it has enough merit to at least discuss it. -- intgr 01:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read Notability; the primary notability criterion is essentially the same, but much more carefully described. Also, the example of a "notoriously underpowered gun" in a computer game as being "clearly notable" is nonsense. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you think this is an MFD, Lefty? At Wikipedia, notability is enforced too much; we intentionally cover more than other encyclopedias. If you are in favor of deleting many things not in other encyclopedias, then this isn't the place to be. -- Chris is  me 05:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If a short article is written to its fullest extent, it is not a stub. So one of the sentences in your policy is logically flawed. If an article is very short (stub length), but still conveys useful information, I don't believe it should be deleted. -Freekee 03:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm saying if, within current guidelines of OR and Verifiability, an article can't pass stub length, it hasn't been covered enough to be "notable" -- Chris is  me 05:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Chris is ME wrote:

"Why do you think this is an MFD, Lefty?"

I know this isn't a motion for deletion, but putting Delete at the beginning of my post is the clearest way of stating that I reject this proposal.
 * Sir, we don't usually use "Chris is me wrote:" in our responses. we just respond wherever the post was. -- Chris is  me 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Chris is Me also wrote:

"At Wikipedia, notability is enforced too much; we intentionally cover more than other encyclopedias. If you are in favor of deleting many things not in other encyclopedias, then this isn't the place to be."

I happen to think that Wikipedia should not have articles on every high school, every shopping mall, every actor, every mayor, every corporation, ect. N is the way we try to ensure that Wikipedia doesn't become a place where every editor posts every tidbit of knowledge they possess. If you have a problem with W:M, feel free to discuss it on that policy's talk page, and to propose changes to it.

Oh, and one other note. This proposal appears to be very poorly worded. I see no reason to adpot it, given the existence of the much better written W:N. W:N isn't perfect, but I certainly prefer it to this proposal; which, given your response to my post, seems suspiciously like an attempt to circumvent W:N. Librarylefty 10:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First, please assume good faith. I am not being malicious in making an alternate proposal to WP:N. If you disagree that we shouldn't have articles on subjects not in traditional encyclopedias, then Wikipedia isn't the place for you, as we have policy that says exactly that. -- Chris is  me 19:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, in addition to WP:N (what I want to replace), WP:V and WP:NOT keep out everything just as well. -- Chris is  me 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) -->

Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I was just feeding a troll. Trolling hidden. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My view
This assumes that everything which can't get past stub status is not worthy of an article. That is not necessarily the case. If you can only describe its existence in reliable sources, then it should be deleted, but that doesn't need another guideline to do. This would be better as an essay. -Amarkov blahedits 17:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well,
What you should do now is find such articles and merge them. If an article can never be more than a stub, it is likely to be improved in both context and informativeness by merging it into a related article. For instance, a List of weapons in HALO can give more meaningful information and comparison than a group of stubs on each individual weapon. Use redirects as necessary, and see WP:FICT for long-standing precedent. The same tends to apply to TV show participants (merge to the show) and parents of celebrities (merge to the celeb). There are always exceptions, of course.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point.. I'll add a merging clause to the proposal. -- Chris is  me 19:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be a whole lot of interest in this proposal (as judged by the lack of reactions here). Perhaps you should consider adding the concept to an existing guideline rather than putting it on its own page?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I originally thought of putting the idea into WP:N, but then I realized that this is sort of the reverse of WP:N... While N does not allow articles that are not sufficiently important into Wikipedia because it's hard to write a good article on them, this proposal actually sets the bar at "can one write a sourced article" rather than "no article on x since you can't likely write an article on it". (srry, tired...) -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 05:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
I'm not really sure what the purpose of this proposal is. As a frequent participation in AFD, and a nominator of >100 articles for deletion processes, I'm a big believer in notability. I believe notability gives us the mandate to delete articles which really don't belong in a credible encyclopedia, but which can't get nuked by other policies alone. This proposal casts all that into murky water - if it's non-notable, but a long article could be written about it (and there are examples of this), then it can be kept. Also, beware of instruction creep. YechielMan 07:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Examples? -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 15:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)