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.
And the best way to judge notability, socially, is verifiability. But even things which are verifiable can and should in many cases be deleted.
I'm sorry, but this sounds a little weaselly. The first sentence makes sense, but then verifiability is a relatively objective criterion that stands alone. If something is not verifiable that's it, and whether it leads to a determination of notability is moot.
Of course there are verifiable materials that should still be deleted. There are any number of perfectly acceptable criteria that allow us to do this
It would be quite possible to start posting detailed information about private individuals by combing through online tax records. We could even have a bot to do it. And it would all be
verifiable from reliable sources. But I think it clear that we would not do that because detailed information about private individuals is not notable.
Respect for privacy will handle this without regard to notability.
My primary objection to the notability criterion remains the high degree of subjectivity that goes into determining whether it applies. While notability can be a factor in some deletion decisions, it is unwise to use it as a stand-alone reason for deletion.
And we should recognize that some social problems we have been having lately can be traced back to flamewars between non-notable people on the Internet spilling over into Wikipedia. This case is probably the best example.
I am not particularly interested in the Ashida Kim matter, have not followed it, and have no intention to find out anything about it. Nevertheless if it is nothing more than flame war spillage it should certainly be treated as non-encyclopedic whether or not the participants are notable.
Ec