|
| Seeing that this conversation seems like it's going to happen anyhow, I might as well address it here. The question is not whether the products are widespread, but whether they're notable in the encyclopedic sense (or even make any claim to be so in their article). I believe that apart from one article that I deleted by mistake, there were no claims to notability in these articles -- they were just product listings, which are not encyclopedic no matter how common the product is. 99% of the existing product articles are crap. The few that merit inclusion need to make very clear what cultural or scientific significance they have in their article. G11 is designed to create a large culling in our articles (focusing on commercial listings) to weed out problems. Read Brad's post on the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list and the extensive discussion connected to it to understand the full story. In the end, I believe that we'll have almost no listings on cellphones, cookies, toilet plungers, toothbrush models, shavers, and the rest of that stuff, with any articles that do remain being on products that have a greater impact on society than merely bring yet another member of some product line.
|
| — Improv 19:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
|
| 
|
