On 5/4/06, Redvers @ the Wikipedia <wikiredvers(a)yahoo.ie> wrote:
From: "Anthony DiPierro"
I still have no idea what it means to
notability" or what "an
article with no claim to notability" is.
Neither do our vandals. I'd go as far as saying that
the majority of CSD-A7 deletions that are immediately
recreated go from "Joe Bloggs is a bicyclist from
Melbourne" to "Joe Bloggs is a notable bicyclist in
Well, that certainly does seem like it would assert notability.
This is a Good Thing, as claiming notability is not
the same as asserting it, and Mr Bloggs and his bike
can be deleted again. I'm always surprised that the
vandals haven't worked out that they should *assert*
notability. But they don't and I think the reason is:
OK. So "claiming notability" = not sufficient. "establishing
notability" = more than enough. "asserting notability" = just right,
How much kool-aid do I have to drink before that starts making sense?
A good encyclopedia article, especially one about a
person or group, sums up the entire article in the
first sentence. You learn everying that is notable and
important about the subject in a couple of dozen words
(less in the better written articles). Anything,
anything at all, that is notable can be summed up in
the opening sentence.
Surely the speedy deletion criterion doesn't require that notability
be summed up in the first sentence. Or is that what "asserting
Wikipedia is the free
encyclopedia anyone can edit.
So if I make a free encyclopedia anyone can edit, that's notable?
Considering that I once did make a free encyclopedia that anyone could
edit, and the article about it was deleted (and later replaced with an
article about some boy-band that stole my name), I don't think so.
Jimbo Wales is an
internet entrepreneur who founded Wikipedia. ABC is a
national television and radio network in the United
States. If it's not notable, you can't sum it up.
"Brian Peppers is a registered sex offender whose unusual appearance
caused his mug shot to be passed around the Internet." "Crab Smasher
is an unsigned indie band from Rock City, Australia." "Hawkin's
School of Performing Arts is a dance school located in Folsom,
California." "Brian Chase is an operations manager at Rush Delivery
who started a controversy over Wikipedia when he posted a hoax for its
article on [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]]"
These are all easily summed up, so they are all notable?
But it's very difficult to *define* what is and
an assertion of notability. Notability is largely a
/quality/, a property something has or doesn't have.
Producing an exact definition of what an assertion of
it looks like is probably beyond the English language.
Like modern art, you can't produce a definition of it,
but know it when you see it!
I certainly don't know modern art when I see it. In fact, I think
there is a lot of disagreement over what modern art is.
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.
I think we can trust our admins to rule on it, if
nothing else because admin actions are undoable. And
if something or someone *is* notable after all, an
article will spring up in its place later and
Possibly even over and over again until admins put up a blank page and
For AfD decisions its harder to know if we can trust
the consensus, but that's because the cut-and-dried
non-notables have been deleted by admins already. Its
the grey-area ones that go to AfD and are subject to
people's prejudices, deletion/inclusion leanings and
the author's potential for disrupting of the process.
If AfD worked, it would be the ideal place to discuss
all of these things. Ho hum.