[Wikipedia-l] Non-notability "abuse"

[Ian Tresman]

I believe that the idea of "notability" is being 
abused to remove controversial articles: it is 
impossible to prove that a subject is notable to 
you, and you can ignore whether it may be notable to someone else.

Jimmy is quoted as saying that the criteria for 
inclusion is verifiability, which is why we have 
the following, many of which are not notable in themselves:

* A thousand articles on each of the top 1000 asteroids
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asteroids_%281-1000%29

* Every single episode of the Simpsons, and many other less notable TV shows.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Simpsons_episodes

* Articles on different shades of blue
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_blue


Examples of abuse?

* We have articles on hundreds of student newspapers
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_student_newspapers

   But one in particular is singled out for 
removal on grounds of notability, presumable 
because of its controversial associations:

   Pensée, a short-lived student newspaper from the 1970s.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9e_%28Immanuel_Velikovsky_Reconsidered%29


* We have articles on some of the most bizarre, 
unproven, and pseudoscientific theories, eg. Time 
Cube, Eloptic energy, and Welteislehre.

   But the article on the "Electric universe 
(concept)" was removed also on the grounds of notability (and other reasons)
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electric_universe_%28concept%29
   Yet the concept is readily verifiable (my 
comments were removed from the AfD, and placed n the discussion page).


*We have articles on all manner of people, from cranks to presidents.

   But the article on "Ralph Juergens" was 
removed on the grounds of his non-notability.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ralph_Juergens
   However, he is notable in the "Velikovsky 
affair", has written articles, etc.


By point is not to specifically argue for the 
inclusion of these articles, but that to suggest, 
for example, that "Pensée" is less notable than 
asteroid #812, shows that notability is a 
subjective criteria influenced by popularity, and is being abused as such.

Wikipedia is supposed to be the "sum of all human 
knowledge", described from a neutral point of 
view, whose criteria for inclusion is 
verifiability. Minority views can receive 
(detailed) attention on pages specifically devoted to them.

The examples I gave are all well-noted 
(verifiable). I agree that you might not 
necessarily find them notable (popular), but is 
that a reason to exclude them from readers who 
are unable to judge for themselves?

Regards,

Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com