On 5/11/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Now, how about "notorious criminals"? Hmm. "Famous criminals"? Might be different - at least you're saying the person's crime has to be famous.
You can't do those, they introduce POV to the category, and categories should be unambiguous. I personally feel the category and all sub-cats meed to be renamed "convicted of a crime", "served a prison sentence" or deleted. If vilification applies to lists, it should apply to categories and that might be the best place to move this on. There's been deletion debates on these categories before, I seem to remember participating in them, but I can't remember what stance I took then.
"Notorious" introduces POV, but "famous" does not. It is not hard to establish that something attracted a large amount of fame. Even "controversial" is not POV, in my mind, since it is easy to see if something attracted significant controversy. But others have disagreed with me on the last point in the past.
Yes, the line between "significantly famous" and "not significantly famous" is fuzzy and requires a little judgment but it is not idiosyncratic and there are metrics one can use for it (whether it is in multiple national newspapers, etc.).
FF