Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lodging

What won't we have "articles" about?
"Articles" like Lodging just make Wikipedia look silly. It's astounding that so many edits have been made on it, and that there was any question about whether it should be deleted. Let's get serious, people. If you don't know what to write about or work on, there are lists of projects looking for editors. -Eric (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not up to any one person to decide if any article is silly or worthless just because it doesn't interest them or doesn't move their gauge of relevance. It's all a question of perspective. Some people say Wikipedia as a whole is silly, to paraphrase "any encyclopaedia anyone can edit? That's just silly". To use your rationale, why are you wasting time making an edit like this when there's lists of projects looking for editors?  WebHamste r  04:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Touché on the waste of time--I just sometimes get overcome by a wave of optimism that I might get people to realize that this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. My comment has nothing to do with my personal interest in the concept of lodging; in fact, I'm quite a seasoned lodger. I am not deciding that the article is silly, and don't mean to rile people with my above comment, which I now see does come across a bit provocative. The word "lodging" very simply does not merit an encyclopedia entry--this is not an opinion, but a reflection of my understanding of what an encyclopedia is. Here's the opinion part: I think Wikipedia is a great project that is becoming a great resource. I promote it and wish I had more time to work on it. However it often appears to me that many of its editors have never opened an encyclopedia and comprehended the difference between it and a dictionary; if they did, Wikipedia would improve faster. -Eric (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with your feelings and am similarly someone who promotes WP at every opportunity. The problem arises that WP ceased to become a pure encyclopaedia a long while ago. Now it's also a combination of Allmusic, IMDb, Gamers World and all manner of other things. You are perfectly correct in that it's not a dictionary but when the inmates are allowed to be in charge of the madhouse then that madhouse can turn into lots of things it was never intended for :). Personally I think fighting against the tide by public proclamation is an exercise in futility unfortunately.  WebHamste r  15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right on that. I look forward to the day I will learn to just smile and try to set a good example instead of pursuing lost causes via tirade! -Eric (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)