m →Lack of fame/recognition: adding to own question/comment |
|||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Or does this perhaps mean "Of itself, even infinitesimally low DR is not grounds for the charge of vanity"? That seems OK, leaving open the possibility of: "I do not claim that the article is vanity, but do claim that its subject has such a negligible DR that it should be deleted." -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 07:17, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC) |
Or does this perhaps mean "Of itself, even infinitesimally low DR is not grounds for the charge of vanity"? That seems OK, leaving open the possibility of: "I do not claim that the article is vanity, but do claim that its subject has such a negligible DR that it should be deleted." -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 07:17, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC) |
||
*Well, whatever EventHorizon says, 'lack of fame' is never 'completely ignored' in deletion debates. A subject doesn't have to be ''famous'' per se but needs to have some kind of merit before an article is merited. There's the biography inclusion guidelines, for instance. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_*]] 10:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:08, 18 April 2005
"The Kid"
I wrote about the fiasco related to an ex-user. I know that he does not desire to have his name mentioned in perpetuity; however, I felt the matter was important to this article. If anyone feels that my inclusion of this material violates said person's privacy, or fans flames of further controversy, feel free to delete that section. I will not object. EventHorizon 05:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
summary
This rule could be summarized "Don't start an article about yourself. If you or your project is notable enough, someone else will start the article."
Add to first paragraph? - Omegatron 22:16, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Minor revert war
There has been a minor revert war about whether articles on high schools can be considered vanity or not. I should point out that it was present in the first version of this page, and given the age of the page one cannot unilaterally take that out. I should also point out that the person to first remove the clause is presently blocked for disruption.
Note that this does not mean that all high school articles are vanity, merely that some are (just like not all articles on people are vanity, but some are). If people want to establish that high school articles are never vanity, they should find an appropriate place to put the matter to discussion. Radiant_* 12:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Lack of fame/recognition
Under the somewhat twee subtitle "Does lack of fame a vanity article make?", we read:
- A page should not be cast away as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates.
(This appears to have been added by EventHorizon in this edit and not touched since.) This appears to say "We don't know what the required degree of recognition (RDR) is and therefore it is zero." Huh?
Or does this perhaps mean "Of itself, even infinitesimally low DR is not grounds for the charge of vanity"? That seems OK, leaving open the possibility of: "I do not claim that the article is vanity, but do claim that its subject has such a negligible DR that it should be deleted." -- Hoary 07:17, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
- Well, whatever EventHorizon says, 'lack of fame' is never 'completely ignored' in deletion debates. A subject doesn't have to be famous per se but needs to have some kind of merit before an article is merited. There's the biography inclusion guidelines, for instance. Radiant_* 10:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)