About an official policy on the relevance of the argument I come encyclopedic article A da Nizar, where there has been a clash between WP: RE and Wikipedia: Relevance of an article. The conflict is determined by the lack of an official po tica Wikipedia in this regard. It is unacceptable that at this moment we have two political guidance for something as important as the relevance of an encyclopedic article. It is imperative that we design from a policy and help us all to discern for themselves what stays and what goes in avoidance of the fan club Paco Porras you register and make us relevant Wikipedia article. The bases are assembled (I quite like WP: RE), but there are a few things clear: 1) Must be a restrictive policy, I mean, should not be so broad as to make us meet again in the same 2 ) It should be a well-designed policy, that is, clear and easy to apply.3rd) You must distinguish between what is relevant encyclopaedically and what not. 4) It should be based on criteria encyclopedic. 5) You must distinguish between the different fields, we can not demand the same for Biographies that places, for example. I find it very urgent. We are still the talk of a lot of blogs, and a sample can be found here. Urge Marctaltor .-- (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, but the only thing missing is that we had to do things for being the talk about blogs. And what is left is that, even over, you come here to make publicity. - Camima (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry you, but I think you confuse my motives. I think that I made clear at the outset and not have to do with we talk to anyone and, of course, I do prublicidad from anywhere. I think I made a logical proposal and I think your answer (apart from a bit risque, if I may) is not consistent with the rest.Still, if that bothers you is the last paragraph, nothing is removed and in peace. Thanks for your comment .-- Marctaltor (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Well, precisely because it does not seem consistent your exposure, so I said what I said. And yes, in this sense, it bothers me the last paragraph, a lot. But you should wait for other users to manifest as to whether or not they deem it relevant. As for your proposal, and apart from that I am not best placed to talk about it because I am completely against any policy relevance encyclopedic, I have to comment on two things: If I am not mistaken, this article is over a long time by the procedure authorized by erasing Wikipedia to decide whether or not articles, it was decided that no. Two days ago, I was criticizing the existence of this article in Wikipedia and, after a tiny discussion about it, now you come here to provoke a debate on the topic of encyclopedic relevance.So, why do not you like it (because what the talk of the blogs is just a cheap excuse to justify the unjustifiable), not only evades the way to exhaust the debate with other users, but obvious the article has already passed the litmus test to stay or not. Why, then, a new policy if people like you who will only settle when you give the reason Not a single point of showing how these are the smallest clear weight of argument, are all cliches, vague and imprecise generalizations in no way justified the opening of this thread in the cafe. Greg Oden Forgive me, then you have answered sharply, but you can not claim to remove certain things with such weak foundations and ill-focused. - Camima (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Look, I thought to answer argued. But seeing the tone and quality of your comments, frankly, I feel useless. And anything you say will result in an ad hominem attack, step widely to talk to you.I would be grateful if you infatuated and just direct your anger elsewhere. Hala, enjoy Marctaltor .-- (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Actually, I believe just the opposite: the policy on the "relevance" is a nuisance, and things could be defined much more simpler if the discussions were limited to verifiability. We do not know s X topic is relevant, consider: Is there self-published reliable sources and not talk about it Is there Ready, if relevant to such means, is irrelevant and need not involve their own criteria: they simply reflect existing criteria in the real world. Wikipedia: Relevance of an article goes in this direction. For folks of the items that nobody talks about politics already self-promotional pages, and for the issues that, although verifiable, no warrant articles, as there is What wikipedia.