User:Draeco/Philosophy
- Wikipedia should include any article that covers a real subject. Because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there should be no limit to the number of articles that it can contain. The main practical limit is financial, but storage is relatively cheap and getting cheaper. To be the ultimate encyclopedia, Wikipedia should freely include articles on any verifiable topic. This includes garage bands, high school clubs, startup websites, and a panoply of other much-maligned "nn cruft" that WP:AFD chews through on a daily basis. Only nonsense and totally worthless vandalism or spam should be deleted.
- Wikipedia should require registration before editing in order to counter vandalism. Wikipedia should continue allowing anyone to edit (it's a foundational principle), just first require that they register an account. In my experience, a majority of blatant vandalism is done by anonymous IP users. Account registration will discourage many casual vandals and will make them easier to track and block. Registration could only entail creating a username and password. This is by no means onerous for internet users who have come to expect at least that much at other sites with "free" access.
- Wikipedia should have ads. It costs a significant sum of money to run and maintain Wikipedia and its 6,914,245 articles. Relying solely on the generosity of donors limits the project now, and will ultimately be unsustainable due to diminishing returns. To support itself, Wikipedia should offer a small adspace in the lower left-hand corner of every page below the toolbox. The ad could be very unobtrusive and still draw tremendous revenue because Wikipedia could demand a steep price since it's one of the top-20 websites worldwide according to Alexa.
WP:NASDAQ
[edit]Notability alone shouldn't definitively authorize quashing an article at AfD. It especially should not suffice when the article is well-written and compliant with all other policies and guidelines. No other policy (much less guideline) is so absolute, but bureaucratic creep has overinflated notability.
Value of non-notable articles
[edit]Keeping non-notable articles does not tarnish Wikipedia. Their existence expands the pool of information recorded on Wikipedia, the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever written. The encyclopedia can continue growing even when "notable" topics are largely covered. New users are welcomed, as they often begin collaborating by adding new articles. Existing editors are invigorated, as they must resort to increasingly obscure topics to expand the encyclopedia.
Meanwhile, wanton deletion of non-notable but otherwise solid articles is destructive. It drives away the involved editors, destroys information, and limits the encyclopedia's scope. If someone cares enough to write an article, someone else probably cares enough to read it and marvel at Wikipedia's depth.
Part of a whole argument
[edit]Notability remains an important guideline. It can and should be part of a comprehensive keep/delete argument. Demonstrating notability advocates for keeping articles that may have other problems. On the other hand, failing notability, like any other guideline, strengthens a deletion argument. But non-notability alone does not justify deletion. The same is true for articles that do not show verifiability, neutrality, independent research, or a slew of other qualities required by policies or guidelines.
Consider the WP:BLP policy: biographies of living persons with negative information are not prohibited per se, but they are held to a higher standard. Such should be the case with non-notable articles. As topics become less notable, they must more definitively meet Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines.