[WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

[Karl A. Krueger]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 11:18:16PM +0000, Sam Korn wrote:
> On 11/22/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You're a Wikipedia editor, not a jobsworth.  Of course research is demanded.
> 
> I think we are probably crossing wires about what I would delete.  I
> would only delete something that was plainly outside policy.  Remember
> that I generally am just as keen to keep stuff as you are.  I am just
> saying that I don't research every deletion I make, because there
> simply isn't time.  Note that I don't take A7 to mean "this guy isn't
> notable" but "this article doesn't claim this guy is notable".  I
> consider myself very generous in this point of view.

This is exactly correct.  A7 says that if an article about a person
fails to _assert_ notability, the article can be speedied.

It doesn't mean deleting articles because we don't *believe* their
claims of notability.  It means deleting articles that don't *bother* to
make any claims of notability.

A7 doesn't require that we research and evaluate the truth of an
article's claims.  When reviewing an article under A7, we should assume
that everything it says is precisely true.  If what it says *still*
isn't notable, that's when A7 requires deletion.

Consider the following article:

	Joe Schmoo

	Joe Schmoo is Fred Bloggs's cousin.  He is a fun guy at parties.

Under A7 review, we don't need to research whether or not Joe Schmoo is
Fred Bloggs's cousin.  We don't need to research whether he is a fun guy
at parties.  We can assume, for the time being, that the article is
correct, and that these things are true.

Under this assumption, we then ask if any of the claims made are
notable.  None are.  Neither being Fred Bloggs's cousin, nor being a fun
guy at parties, is a reason that a person should be in an encyclopedia.

That's all we need.

Under A7, the Joe Schmoo article is eligible for deletion.

It doesn't matter if there are other notable facts about Joe Schmoo.
(Could be that he's a famous researcher in biodynamic insect physics who
published a ground-breaking article on bee fusion.)  The article didn't
state any of those claims, so they don't enter into the A7 review.

If someone wants to come along later and write a new article about Joe
Schmoo that *does* claim notability, that's great!  They're absolutely
permitted to do so, and the previous A7 deletion *must not* militate
against the new, notable article.

-- 
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>