[WikiEN-l] The Economist on "notability"

[Kurt Maxwell Weber]

On Thursday 13 March 2008 10:34, Ian Woollard wrote:
>
> Yes, I completely agree with that. Provided the conclusion drawn is
> not synthetic- it has to be totally unarguable from the source, then
> the piece itself is a very good source on what it said.
>
> But that's very different from notability. Notability is whether what
> it says or is is actually important, rather than what it exactly says.

And is also totally irrelevant.

>
> And it's critical that these not be confused.
>
> In other words, notability is about whether we are violating NPOV by
> even mentioning it in the wikipedia. Are we giving it undue weight by
> making an article about it?

Oh, COME ON.  You're kidding me, right?

Seriously, call me "unhelpful" all you want, but all you're doing here is 
grasping at straws trying to salvage a lost cause.

>
> If you have (say) 3.5 million articles in the wikipedia and somebody
> makes an article on a random star in the sky, it had damn well better
> be the case that that star is about as important as the other 3.5
> million other articles.

Not at all.
-- 
Kurt Weber
<kmw at armory.com>