Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:AFD Homer Simpson"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
: Since when do encyclopedias only contain "intellectual content"? By definition an encyclopedia contains information on as much as possible --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 10:11, 16 April 2007 (EDT) | : Since when do encyclopedias only contain "intellectual content"? By definition an encyclopedia contains information on as much as possible --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 10:11, 16 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: That's not accurate. An encyclopedia contains information that is ''within a definable scope''. The definition of that scope is the sole prerogative of its senior editors. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: [[Wikipedia]] might want to do a page on every silly [[television|TV]] show that has ever released. But at Conservapedia, we have the right to be a tad more selective. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Show me that ''The Simpsons'' will be a TV classic, and define for me how you would judge a classic as worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, and I'll reconsider.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 12:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 16:04, April 16, 2007
No intellectual content I'd go careful with that. You might end up having to AFD many other articles too. WhatIsG0ing0n 10:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- Since when do encyclopedias only contain "intellectual content"? By definition an encyclopedia contains information on as much as possible --Pacman 10:11, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- That's not accurate. An encyclopedia contains information that is within a definable scope. The definition of that scope is the sole prerogative of its senior editors.