On 05/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
Surely the speedy deletion criterion doesn't
require that notability
be summed up in the first sentence. Or is that what "asserting
I can't speak for the CsD, but summing up notability in the first
sense is good practice stylistically. Of course, notability is a vague
concept. Mentioning that someone was a king makes them notable without
any further information. I wonder how we deal with notability for
mathematical formulas though...do we accept "Smith's rule" if it was
invented for one published paper and never referred to since?
> States. If it's not notable, you can't
sum it up.
These are all easily summed up, so they are all
You know that's not a logical restatement.
I'm starting to think that "notability"
is even more this way. It
means something radically different to different people, to the point
where the ability to delete due to non-assertion of notability is
equivalent to the ability to delete for any reason whatsoever.
Notability is very poorly defined at the moment. And there are
certainly biases present in our interpretation of it - for example, I
doubt a journalist for a major paper in a minor city in an
little-known country would stand much of a chance. If the country was
the US, the article would stand a better chance of surviving.
But all of this is to say - fix the problem of lack of notability
definition, don't just complain about it. :)