On 20/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Philippe Beaudette [mailto:philippebeaudette@gmail.com]
----- Original Message ----- From: James Farrar
On 20/04/07, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Posted on behalf of Musical Linguist, at her request:
An argument against deleting it is that he's notable enough to *permit* inclusion. He is not notable enough to *require* inclusion. We would not lose credibility as an encylopaedia if the article were gone.
I don't recognise degrees of notability beyond the binary state of "notable enough to have an article" or "not". Talk of degrees of notability are unhelpful because you could be faced with a question of "where do we draw the line?" - we already have that line.
Deleting an article because the subject wants it deleted would set a terrible precedent. What do we do in the future if someone else wants their bio deleted? If we delete this one, we must delete all bios on request.
Hmmm... no, I don't buy that. - I don't buy that this is precedent setting, even were it to happen. I simply don't think any argument that includes "we must...." is ever acceptable.
We can choose to delete for minor notables, and not for major notables. It adds a layer of decision making (who decides who's a major notable and a minor notable?), but that's not insurmountable. Frankly, I also don't buy that there are no levels of notability. Sanjaya, say, is notable today, but will he be in five years? 50 years? Whereas, Charles Darwin is notable forever.
We are having a lot of trouble with specious arguments being accepted. Thank you for pointing out the simple logic that there is true notability and marginal notability. We make many distinguishing decisions. I can still remember Sanjaya, even see and hear him in my mind's eye, but for how long?
[[WP:NOT#CBALL]]. We can't judge notability at specified or unspecified future points; we can only judge notability *right now*. (We could potentially judge notability at points in the past, but that would prove irrelevant.)