On 5/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/10/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It's just as easy to say that "being a city isn't notable" or "being a high school district isn't notable" or "being a Pokemon card isn't notable" or "being a Korean children's science-fiction film directed by Kim Cheong-gi and starring Shim Hyung-rae isn't notable" or "being a seiyū isn't notable".
Being a Pokemon card produced by the official makers of Pokemon is pretty notable.
I agree that it's notable, but that doesn't mean it isn't quite likely that there are others who disagree.
In any case, there is widespread support for the idea that certain types of entities escape notability criteria and are included for completeness. Less support for actually formalising what those entities might be :)
Sure, there's a loud group of people who feel that certain types of articles should be deleted from Wikipedia. A lot of them use the terminology "not notable" to designate those types of articles that they feel shouldn't be included.
Click on random page a few times. I don't see an indisputable claim to notability for any of the articles I managed to hit.
Heh. "Random page" has never been used as a sign of what a good page *should* be.
If the vast majority of random pages are candidates for speedy deletion, then the deletion mechanisms of Wikipedia are utterly broken.
I don't know of a poll to determine if your speculation as to the Wikipedia editors opinion is correct. In fact, I think a significant portion of Wikipedia editors *does* feel that we should have a Wikipedia article on all chemists. Not that I think inclusion in Wikipedia should be decided by a poll in the first place.
I'd bet there are less than a million chemists in the world. Not that it matters, I don't see any reason why being in a group which consists of "millions" does not amount to notability.
I'm confused by what is meant by "chemist" here. To me it normally means a pharmacist - someone who has a pharmacology degree and sells headache pills to customers. If you're talking about published academics, that's different...
I'm using the term chemist to mean the same as it means in the US government job occupation database. In that database, there are listed to be 90,000 chemists in the US.
There is no such high school as Whateverville high school, so that's patently absurd.
Let's work together, eh?
Choose a stupid hypothetical, get a stupid result.
As for my definition of notability, unless someone else comes up with a better one (which was one of the goals of this thread), I'd say notability = worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Since I think every high school student who plays football and listens to RHCP should be included in Wikipedia, I think they're all notable.
That's sort of ok, but leads to a circular reference ("we only include people who are notable. what's notable? people worthy of inclusion"). It would just cause us to seek another word to explain *why* someone is worthy of inclusion. "Interesting" etc.
Well sure, I don't think the term "notable" is useful. And I don't think it should be used in a speedy deletion criterion. Because, like you say, it's circular reasoning.
Better to say: We include things in Wikipedia because either: a) They're inherently notable amongst their class b) Because they are part of a class small enough that it's feasible and worthwhile including all members c) Because it would offend too many people to remove them
You might want to say that, but I don't think it's true. If it was, then you could point to a number of members of the class that is a cutoff, and there wouldn't be significant deviations on either side. There are probably a lot more baseball players than there are haz-mat - is a haz-mat driver part of a class small enough that it's feasible to include all the members.
And then, your criteria are just as circular as my definition. What is "inherently notable amongst their class"? What makes a class "worthwhile" to talk about?
Of course I don't think all high school students who play football are notable, and they don't meet the other two criteria either.
Well, I think they are. I also think it's feasible and worthwhile to include all members, at least all members that something verifiable can be written about (and that wouldn't amount to a violation of privacy rights).
From my understanding of Wikipedia policies, the default presumption is *always* inclusion. It used to be a sentence directly in the policy: "When in doubt, don't delete." I haven't bothered to check whether that sentence has been deleted or not.
There have been edit wars over it.
Steve