On 28/02/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/07, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > Notability means there is likely to be
enough verifiable material
> > about a subject from enough different sources to write about it in a
> > NPOV manner without resorting to original research.
> No it doesn't. At least that's not
what's being pushed, and it's
> CERTAINLY not what's occurring in practice.
It is the only way that notability guidelines SHOULD
work, however.
Notability guidelines, IMO, should be guidelines for inclusion, not
exclusion; in other words, if it passes this test, then of course we
keep it, no need to re-debate it. They should be speedy-keep
guidelines.
They cannot be authoritative, and thus an article's failure to meet
their standards should simply mean that more discussion is required.
I suggest you read AFD for a bit, then. This is all a nice idea, but
is the precise opposite of how they are used in practice and the use
they were in fact created on Wikipedia for.
- d.