On 24 Sep 2006, at 19:19, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
Stephen Streater wrote
I thought the biggest problem was
that they didn't implement policy.
If you look at admins doing speedy deletion, particularly under A7,
and at prod deletions, you actually see people pushing the envelope
in trying to implement it.
The problem comes at the crunch point: what _is_ an assertion of
notability?
I have had at least one futile-type argument over this: if I write
that X is 'known' for work in area Y, is that not an assertion of
notability? By the way, this is just the sort of criterion we
should actually use. A reference work should contain information on
'known' things that are worth knowing, in the opinion of those who
know. It is no good asking in the abstract whether proving the
Fronckensteen Conjecture makes you notable, without knowing whether
the FC is a long-standing issue, or something the guy next to you
in lectures wondered about yesterday.
I have been involved in starting a few articles.
The first versions always say:
"This subject is notable because of <X>",
but as soon as they are launched on to WP,
this is always changed to
"This subject has property <X>".
But at least they survive CSD.
PS Congratulations on getting so many
approval votes in the election!