From what I can tell (I don't do a lot of speedy tagging, so I could
be getting my wires crossed here) A7 refers to several specific types of articles which do not assert/verify notability. I don't really see how this is so banal, or how it could ever be fixed. Unless you want to totally eliminate notability as a valid speedy criteria, there are no better options. The categories link directly to helpful and specific types of notability requirement for which there presently are no substitutes. Judging whether something asserts notability has never been the difficult part of determining notability in my experience, it's whether or not the assertion is verifiably true.
On 9/29/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
This is a new thread to discuss CSD A7.
The Category for Speedy Deletion A7 is a menace. It is far too open to misuse. It should be replaced by something with far less discretion.
My question is: we need a banality threshold, but which one? We do need articles speedied if they are without redeeming interest. A7 is broken, and builds on the idea that notability (another broken idea) and its "assertion" can be properly judged by individuals.
What is there that can be put in its place? How can we better characterise "run-of-the-mill" ?
Charles
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l