-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Brian Haws wrote:
I have to ask, you used the word notable a couple times in your reply but in the actual AFD entry description here you used verifiable information as a standard to judge inclusion.
Do you see notablility as a inclusion standard? Or is notability just a another way to express that something can be verified. And as such doesn't have a separate meaning (in AFD debates) to judge Wilipedia inclusion standards?
Yes, I very strongly think that notability is a valid inclusion standard.
What's frightening about this statement is the tendency of some members of this community to view it as an absolute ''ex cathedra" pronouncement. In the light of your other comments on this matter, it is clear that your views are considerably more textured. Some editors frown upon texture. Idiotic as it may be, it is a fact of life that some editors will say, "Delete, not-notable," or "Keep, notable," as their entire justification for action with respect to some article.
Hence I started my RFC against such people (and I'm still waiting for some more support on it):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFC/AfD
I invite everyone who feels that people who simply say "nn, d." or "keep, notable" or "keep, we are winning" or "delete, let's get rid of all of these" are Pains in the Arse and Should Be Shot.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \