- Wikipedia was an activist project to start with. Do we really need the Britannica standards to be employed in the 21th century. What is not high literature and culture is not knowledge. Deletionism attitude is slowly stiffing Wikipedia. To the point: The killing of Cecil re-ignites the debate over trophy hunting--Natkeeran (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are well over 4 million articles, i think it will be hard for you to actually justify your claims of "stiffing". And we shall see if Cecil has more power to impact trophy hunting than the absolute assurances people proclaimed that Sandyhook would impact national American gun laws. If it does, hooray. But it actually needs to happen first, and it cannot be using Wikipedia to attempt to make it happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, lets remove all the articles about Middle East, because there is no result, there is no peace yet. Outrage, debate, international media coverage, who cares, because Wikipedia needs elite standards for articles. Do New York Times, National Post, BBC have standards; na, they are just writing reports on a slow news day. I want to keep all the articles in this category: Category:Cricketers by nationality and this one. --Natkeeran (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You have quite proven my very position - the events in the Middle East typically have long lasting, wide ranging impacts on many real life events ranging from product embargoes to policy creation - not merely passing twitter trending. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reasoning is inherently flawed. The reason why we consider events encyclopaedical is not dependent on the question whether or not they actually have a profound and long-lasting impact, but rather, the question if people view it as such. There are countless historical events that have had a big impact on human life (e.g. the invention of some sort of metal alloy that could then be used for some industrial process etc) yet people wouldn't care two cents about, and there are events that in retrospect lead to nothing but held millions of people in its grip. You act as if it is up to you to decide what is worthy of this encyclopaedia and what is not, but frankly, it is not the decision of an individual, but rather the masses. This is not a 19th century encyclopaedia, this is Wikipedia. Welcome. L E X commons (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#The_event you are wrong. There must be Lasting effects and Duration of coverage neither of which has been established. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of going full blown inflexible and citing some arbitrarily defined rules, you should ask yourself what the purpose of an encyclopaedia is: to inform people in a neutral way about important events. If you leave this matter to news sites, you will not get a neutral point of view, as the matter will devolve into something either pro-hunting or contra-hunting. The people clearly want to know more about this lion. So make it possible to share information. Jeez. The people on this website sometimes.. L E X commons (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for telling me what I have and haven't thought about! Did you know that I HAVE thought about this WP:IINFO ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yawn. Stop hiding behind hyperlinks. Nobody cares.L E X commons (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You may not care that my positions are based on policies, but the closing admin will. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Was that supposed to be a witty comeback? Jeez. The people on this website sometimes...L E X commons (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It was merely a statement of fact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm about to bring out the trouts... stop this bickering please. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|