 | This section in a nutshell: Everybody doesn't like something. If you don't like articles about certain subjects, consider just not reading them and instead working positively on the stuff you do like, instead of spending energy destroying other people's work. |
| “ | Your stuff is shit. But my shit is stuff. – George Carlin | ” |
Some people hate that we have articles like Squiddly Diddly (a cartoon "octopus" with only six arms). Other people love to work on articles about old cartoon shows, but hate that we have articles like Ed Brown (a 19th century ballplayer about whom essentially nothing is known). Other people love to work on baseball player articles, but scoff at articles like Cape Boothby (a chunk of barren rock which has never been visited by humans). Other people love to work on geography articles but hate that we have articles like Texaco Doodlebug (a 1930s truck of which six were made). Other people love to work on articles about early 20th century motor vehicles but consider it silly that we have articles like Yevdokim Zyablovskiy (an utterly forgotten 18th century Russian geographer). Other people like to work on articles about 18th century academics, but consider articles like Hunger (an obscure 1960s band) to be utter cruft. Other people like to work on articles about garage bands, but are appalled by articles like Düsseldorf Cow War (casualties: two civilians, and a herd of cows taken prisoner, in 1651). Other people like to work on articles about historical events, but think it's ridiculous that we have articles like Vendomyces (an extinct and barely-described lifeform that may or may not have been a fungus). Other people love to work on articles about fungi, but have no use for articles like Red Raven Comics (a comic book which had one issue). Other people enjoy documenting 20th century comics, but laugh at articles like Clement Oak (a tree standing behind a Wal-Mart in rural New Jersey). Other people like to work on articles about oak trees, but despise articles like vodka eyeballing (an obscure, useless, and dangerous fad). Other people want to document 21st century memes, but dislike articles like Rubidium hydride (an obscure, useless, and dangerous chemical compound). Other people like to work on articles about chemicals, but deride articles like Domna Anisimova (an obscure, blind, and illiterate rural Russian poet). Other people like to work on biographies of 19th century poets, but mock articles like Prairie Grove Airlight Outdoor Telephone Booth (a phone booth). Other people like to work on articles about telecommunication history, but... and so it goes.
Oh well. Everybody doesn't like something.
Somehow it all works and we have a large, widely read encyclopedia generally considered to be a success, which is not only as gigantic and useful knowledge database which has served many people well in their path through life, but as an ornament to humanity in which intelligent people can find joy. Because that is true, it might be that a reasonable approach to all this might be "let's keep doing what we've been doing", which would kind of mean working on the material that you find pleasing and useful, and leave alone the material that you don't but that other people do, unless it is genuinely dreadful, unsalvageably substandard, actually harmful, or otherwise utterly worthless.
Another way to approach this is to consider "Article [NAME] exists, but if we destroy it, that will enhance the experience of people searching on the term [NAME], because __________". If there isn't anything compelling to go in the blank, maybe you should move on.