Editing Encyc:Community portal/Archive 1 (section)

===Is there some threshold of notability for articles?===
For example, some edits suggest that there should only be articles for especially notable users on Wikipedia and WR. I tend to agree, but I propose that this threshold is fairly low. A few hundred WR posts, or opining on several WP controversies is enough that explaining the user's history would be helpful to readers and therefore worthy of an article here. [[User:One|One]] 01:10, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I used my own guidelines, which I didn't really tell anyone before, but this is what they were:

Either:

# They have an existing article elsewhere that is popular and well known (e.g. on Wikipedia, Encyclopaedia Dramatica).
# They are/were a moderator/administrator/founding member of Wikipedia Review (there aren't that many of them).
# They were in the anti-cabal group of Wikipedia Review (most who were ended up as an admin at some point), which has its own rules for who is worthy (trustworthy, 500+ posts, liked by all).
# They had a notable argument with someone on Wikipedia Review (e.g. Malber, Amorrow, Grace Note).
# They are a notable administrator of Wikipedia (especially if they have their own sub section on Wikipedia Review).
# They are a Wikipedia user with more power than they should have (aka [[cabal]] member), e.g. [[Chip Berlet]], [[Antaeus Feldspar]], [[Lulu of the Lotus Eaters]].
# They are a sock puppet or suspected sock puppet of either a notable administrator or a user with more power than they should have (e.g. [[Janeyryan]], [[Sweet Blue Water]]).
# The article documented a well known controversy that might need to be explained.

I also left a clause in there that nobody's privacy would be invaded.  If someone made a credible argument that it was invading their privacy to have an article here, then that article could be deleted or else edited to protect their privacy. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 14:05, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:We're not paper.  As long as our resources can keep up with it, I don't mind having an article about every single Wikipedian.  What purpose does deleting such articles serve? [[User:Emperor|Emperor]] 18:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::Given that when you delete things they can be undeleted (and hence still take up the same space), I am not sure why there is a need to ever delete anything - EXCEPT for when it might be breaking a law.  I for one agree with the [[oversight]] command, although sadly it has been used abusively more often than responsibly (or at least it was in the beginning).  I did wipe one particular article here for privacy concerns, and I have had an agreement that there is no point in having an article on [[Giggy]] as it seems that his role in trying to hurt me was accidental, and really he has no other claims to fame.  [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 10:56, 31 August 2008 (EDT)