This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The notability tag is a concern. As a main driver and author of what is now referred to as the GNG it feels like the idea behind the GNG has got lost. We're here to build an encyclopedia, a repository of knowledge, and we should be discussing the way this article informs people rather than whether it meets a subjective set of wording. That was the idea behind notability, that we ensure that we hold the information to account, that we ensure that we engage with each other and peer review what we do. We shouldn't be tagging an article and not leaving a message on talk about why; specifically, not engaging with the idea behind what Wikipedia is. It's open, it's collaborative, it's informative. Show the harm in the article. Then think about Summary Style and organisational theory. How does the encyclpedia fit, is a link to a separate page better and more concise than information subsumed into a larger entity, harder to find and link to? Choose what's best for the purpose, for the reader, for the knowledge. HidingT08:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
