On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 09/04/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com>
Oldak Quill wrote:
For these reasons, "notability" is a
terrible way to determine whether
an article should be kept or deleted on Wikipedia. The sooner we
abandon it (and start relying on harder measures such as
verifiability), the better.
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
I've read the page more thoroughly and I fail to see how you could
have interpreted what I said as a plug for it. I said we should
entirely abandon notability for verification while that page states
that an article should be included if it is verifiable and notable.
I recognise the page seeks to change emphasis from notability to
verifiability and some of the reasoning is related to mine. Still, I
don't think the page goes far enough.
Why am I flogging this horse? I don't like being accused of doing (or
assumed to have done) things I did not do.
I don't particularly dislike the idea. But I believe it would open a whole
new can of worms.
Instead of discussing notability, we'd be arguing if a source is notable or
if the newspaper article by an otherwise reliable newspaper is a
I don't see how that could improve the situation.
Unfortunately, I still see a lot of people on AFD arguing something is not
notable without any sort of explanation what yard stick they're using. That
should stop and I would certainly agree if someone decided to discount votes
that don't cite a reason. You could take a delete vote to mean "per nom",
but if in the mean time someone opposed deletion, someone should address
their point. If no one's doing that, the AFD is being treated as a blanket
vote instead of a discussion. Arguments are still ignored too much.