csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
The relentless discussion about deletion that I am just catching up with on this mailing list prompted to review a deletion decision that got on my nerves back in June. "Full nice handbag co" was a pathetic little article about a textile company in Hong Kong. It was never much of an article, but it was real, neutral, factual, verifiable. It was very narrowly VfDed (with a small majority of about 55-60% voting delete) on grounds of non-notability. Following deletion, I objected at VfU - my grounds for undeletion were that the reasons for deletion were so tenuous (see below) and the majority so small that we should have erred on the side of caution and kept the article
Notability is extremely subjective. To my mind, a manufacturing company of twelve years standing is more notable than a minor character in a Lord of the Rings book. But others disagree. The VfU eventually failed - both to get the article undeleted and to raise the issues about systematic biases of domain of knowledge of editors affecting deletion.
Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I came to the conclusion that I would be helping Wikipedia if I was bold and reinstated the article anyhow. Unfortunately good old RickK got in a right tizz about this. Rick and I have exchanged words that just about stay civil on our talk pages, and Theresa Knott helpfully suggested I come here to the mailing list (a kind of higher court than VfU if you will, and one arena more open to more philosophical/esoteric debates) to see if I want did was reasonable.
So here I am, throwing myself open to community opinion,
Pcb21
Out of interest, exactly why is that article notable? Serious question.
Notability is irrelevant. There's bugger-all that's serious about that question.
Ec