They are fully aware of the complexities because six million people in Inner Mongolia in China already use this script.
The current situation is this: "As of 2015 there are no fonts that successfully display all of Mongolian correctly when written in Unicode" [1], meaning that specialized software using Private Use Areas of Unicode are the only way to typeset it.
Ah, thanks. As in Expired (date). Where date is every day from the day it expires until forever. Not Expired on date, but currently expired. Makes sense now.
Irrelevant if you're not adjusting properly for demographic factors.
And even if the company suicide rate were no higher than average, thats simply an indication that immiserating employment conditions are widespread and commonplace.
Anybody who has ever worked a terrible job can tell you all about how it might make you feel suicidal.
It's strongly discouraged and looked down upon. Editors with a conflict of interest take up a disproportionate amount of other editors' time and are practically never able to write neutrally about themselves or their company.
Even if it was a clumsy self-promotion or over-ambitious fans with no clue on wikipedia inner mechanics shouldn't set back a viable interest on information about a given company or other entitity by a multitude of years.
After a deletion it's just magnitudes harder for anyone to get an article restored, compared to an entity which didn't have the "luck" to get added to wikipedia too early.
Deletion history shouldn't have that much of a say on actively developing entities as it has now.
The exact opposite thing is true. If the article is bad, it needs to not be on the site. What's important are reliable articles, not how many articles there are. It's perfectly fine for a topic we know will be more obviously notable in the coming years to stall for an article until a decent one can be written.
This has been the ethos of the project practically since its inception. It's always startling to see people questioning Wikipedia's premises, since it seems pretty clearly to be one of the most successful volunteer projects in the entire history of the Internet.
Wikipedia can actually be pretty schizophrenic on the issue. Depending on timing and the interest groups involved, it can go either way.
I've personally given up on editing Wikipedia (too many fanatics with infinite time), but IMHO it needs to be much more deletionist than it is now. There is value to its current wide scope, but its maintenance model has trouble with long tail articles. It shouldn't have an article unless it can consistently gather medium-sized quorum of active editors to watch over it.
That is not what Wikipedia's policies say. They say that if a topic full-fills the notability criteria there should be an article for it. It does not say that if an article is bad it should be deleted - rather the contrary - if an article is bad, improve it!
This was the ethos of the project in the beginning but is not the ethos anymore. People have realized how valuable it is for companies and other actors to have their own article on Wikipedia. Therefore Wikipedians have created a very bureaucratic system for deciding which articles should be created. And people like to wield power. For example, by rejecting perfectly good articles.
This article was struck for not meeting the notability criteria, which involves citing reliable sources that make a straightforward claim of notability. It's not a perfectly good article.
If the problem is rejection of "perfectly good articles", why start by arguing there's no grounds for deleting bad articles? Seems like dancing around the point.
Your first source is a bad one but here is a review: [1] The association is really not strong but the authors do advice against indiscriminate paracetamol use.
While the liver toxicity alone would seem to argue against indiscriminate acetaminophen (google tells me that is the same as "paracetamol" but that is a new name to me) use, I would expect common sense to argue against indiscriminate use of anything that is not simply food. I'd look to evidence like you provide to advise me as to how, exactly, I should discriminate. But indiscriminate use of most things seems inadvisable.
Umm NSAIDs like Naproxen have their own list of issues which may be worse than Tylenol. Another issue is that Tylenol is often used because it does not interact with other NSAIDs so if you are not sure if someone has taken medication with a NSAID in it, you can safely give them Tylenol, generally speaking, where as if you give them more NSAIDs you could potentially risk an overdose. So its not as simple as Napoxen is superior to Tylenol. IANAD,
Absolutely. You could even add fake citations to online newspapers – the odds of someone checking are very low, and I continually stumble upon either blatant fabrications or misunderstandings that have stood there "sourced" for years on high-traffic articles.
Almost all textbooks and dictionaries use their own transcription key, I haven't come across plain old IPA in language learning textbooks, only in linguistics textbooks.
IPA was in use in every German high school book for English or French in the 1980s. I have no reason to believe it has changed, but I haven't used any since then.
Using own systems I have seen in very naive tourist guides and in text books by English speaking publishers.
The current situation is this: "As of 2015 there are no fonts that successfully display all of Mongolian correctly when written in Unicode" [1], meaning that specialized software using Private Use Areas of Unicode are the only way to typeset it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_script#Font_issues