What a trivial thing to do, to delete something for that reason?
Why the hell is there such a controversy to this? They could just let it stay up, then there's no problem.
I can't understand if it's the "notability" of the article, or if the secondary sources give it a credibility which they are looking for.
Doesn't matter if it's not notable, if I want to find more information about anything I turn to Wikipedia. IF they really wanted a vast encyclopedia, they would strive to contain all knowledge.
The page could use an overhaul but to delete it seems rather unnecessary.
[QUOTE=Metalcastr;28390504]Doesn't matter if it's not notable, if I want to find more information about anything I turn to Wikipedia. IF they really wanted a vast encyclopedia, they would strive to contain all knowledge.[/QUOTE]
that isn't feasible at all
while deleting this article may be questionable, there is certainly no reason Wikipedia should have an article for every website in existence or every other trivial creation on the face of the planet.
Wikipedia is dumb anyway.
"hei guis i need a new boat." is what I see whenever I go on there.
I could think of many less notable articles than "Old Man Murray" that exists on wikipedia.
wikipedia is full of edit nazis with none to nothing moderation.
[QUOTE=Lazor;28392020]there is certainly no reason Wikipedia should have an article for every website in existence or every other trivial creation on the face of the planet.[/QUOTE]
That is/was exactly what Wikipedia is/was supposed to be.
It certainly was. But I'm certainly not sure if is is correct now, seems things have changed for the worse.
Decided to check the website and read Erik's post about 9/11.
...God damn...
It's sad, epic and funny at the same time.
I thought this was about Bill Murray.
[QUOTE=dgg;28392757]That is/was exactly what Wikipedia is/was supposed to be.
It certainly was. But I'm certainly not sure if is is correct now, seems things have changed for the worse.[/QUOTE]
really? Wikipedia's original intent was to be a source of information for [b]everything[/b]? That would mean every human being could have an article. the state of my fucking apartment on June 25th, 2010 could have a fucking article. there has to be standards or Wikipedia would be a mess.
[QUOTE=Lazor;28394296]really? Wikipedia's original intent was to be a source of information for [b]everything[/b]? That would mean every human being could have an article. the state of my fucking apartment on June 25th, 2010 could have a fucking article. there has to be standards or Wikipedia would be a mess.[/QUOTE]
Billions of peoples life stories, photos of them, dates, etc etc.
Shit would get creepy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
