Talk:Bullingdon Club: Difference between revisions
George Swan (talk | contribs) ({{subpages}}) |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) (removed PropDel) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== Should this article be kept or deleted? == | |||
[[User:John Leach]] tagged this article for deletion with the edit summary ''"[https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Bullingdon_Club&diff=949881&oldid=872634 some of this can go into the Johnson and Cameron articles, including the bit in the source about how "Call Me Dave" won't talk about it]"'' | |||
It seems to me that one general weakness of John's deletion suggestions was that he had way too much confidence in his existing fund of general knowledge. Consequently, I think his record shows he always skipped spending even 30 seconds on a google search of topics he disliked. | |||
A simple google search will show that the Bullingdon Club was widely covered, in detail, on multiple occasions, over the years. | |||
A simple google search will show that the Bullingdon Club inspired plays, books, movies. | |||
His notion that material in the current article should be shoehorned into other articles? I am much more experienced with online encyclopedias than John. Based on my much longer experience I would argue that his approach of shoehorning material that can and should standalone into related articles is a very bad approach. | |||
The power of online encyclopedias, like Citizendium, and Wikipedia, lies not in the raw information they contain, but in how it is organized. Real world topics are richly connected to other real world topics. The best approach to article writing is for every topic that is well enough referenced to be a standalone article to be a standalone article. And then these standalone articles should be interlinked with the articles on the topics they are they are | |||
related to. [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] ([[User talk:George Swan|talk]]) 23:23, 24 April 2024 (CDT) | |||
: George, I also do not see why this one needs to be deleted, so I have removed PropDel from it. But, it has a couple of broken references. Could you please fix those? [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 09:17, 25 April 2024 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:17, 25 April 2024
Should this article be kept or deleted?
User:John Leach tagged this article for deletion with the edit summary "some of this can go into the Johnson and Cameron articles, including the bit in the source about how "Call Me Dave" won't talk about it"
It seems to me that one general weakness of John's deletion suggestions was that he had way too much confidence in his existing fund of general knowledge. Consequently, I think his record shows he always skipped spending even 30 seconds on a google search of topics he disliked.
A simple google search will show that the Bullingdon Club was widely covered, in detail, on multiple occasions, over the years.
A simple google search will show that the Bullingdon Club inspired plays, books, movies.
His notion that material in the current article should be shoehorned into other articles? I am much more experienced with online encyclopedias than John. Based on my much longer experience I would argue that his approach of shoehorning material that can and should standalone into related articles is a very bad approach.
The power of online encyclopedias, like Citizendium, and Wikipedia, lies not in the raw information they contain, but in how it is organized. Real world topics are richly connected to other real world topics. The best approach to article writing is for every topic that is well enough referenced to be a standalone article to be a standalone article. And then these standalone articles should be interlinked with the articles on the topics they are they are related to. George Swan (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2024 (CDT)
- George, I also do not see why this one needs to be deleted, so I have removed PropDel from it. But, it has a couple of broken references. Could you please fix those? Pat Palmer (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2024 (CDT)