Steve Bennett 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.
Well, in that case, I'll start adding individual MTG cards. And here I am thinking that "notability" had some meaning of "significance" or "rarity"...
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 :)
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.
It's a great way to find things to prod/speedy though.
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...
A chemist would be a person who practices chemistry; a pharmacist is someone who practices pharmacy.