On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Dan Grey wrote:
What is this "standard of notability" anyway? I prefer Jimbo's guide to what should and should not be in: if the information is verifiable (ie it's been published somewhere, and most people who are going to interested in it can access it), and it's not original research, it deserves a place.
As a criterion for new articles, I agree. But the trouble is that people use it for pushing junk into existing articles. Take [[Ark of the Covenant]] recently: should a sensible article like this include stuff about it being an extraterrestrial communications device and an early example of a capacitor, just because its verifiable that people have said it was? There is a junk science / psuedo science problem.
-W.
William M Connolley | wmc@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/ Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (01223) 221479 If I haven't seen further, it's because giants were standing on my shoulders