Since traditional encyclopedias have articles on hotels and actresses, why
can't Wikipedia?
If an article on an American actress as notable as Chen Liping
was nominated for deletion, the
nominator would probably be admonished - or even blocked - for
disruption. That the American
Wikipedian who nominated the article for deletion (or speedy
deleted) has not heard of it does not
mean it is notable. Notability does not depend on the country the
actress/blogger/hotel is from, but
on whether there is significant coverage of
the actress/blogger in reliable sources.
Instead of fighting to get an article deleted on the grounds of
"non-notability", why not go and write some GAs?
P.S. Ian and I are discussing different
issues. Ian's complaint is that controversial articles are
deleted on the grounds of "non-notability", while I am addressing the
problem of articles on
Singaporean topics being deleted on the grounds of "non-notability".
Perhaps we should create
another thread about systemic bias and notability? Sorry for hijacking your
thread, Ian.
--
Written with passion,
J.L.W.S. The Special One
2007/9/20, Ian Tresman <ian2(a)knowledge.co.uk >:
It hardly requires any sort of radical
"Wikipedia isn't paper"
justification to include hotels and actresses in an encyclopedia. Even
the most staid, old-fashioned encyclopedias of eras past, like
Britannica's famous 1911 edition, included both. What exactly is the
objection here?
Different people have their own ideas as to what is "encyclopedic",
and what is "notable".
So if they want to exclude something, they claim it is
"unencyclopedic" or not notable. Since neither of these are
objective, there's no rational argument for or against.
So some of us spend more time in "discussions" over notability of
policy, than on time adding or improving articles.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l