---- ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:

Oldak Quill wrote:

...

Could you give me a definition of "notability" that is not entirely centred around the culture and experience of the person who uses it? I'm yet to hear one. IMO, we should completely abandon, or redefine, "notability" for something more tangible, measurable and worthy of our efforts.

I don't know the "I know it when I see it and I'll vote that way" approach does not seem to me to be the biggest problem we have. I think a bigger problem is focusing on notability too much to the exclusion of such questions as: "Is there enough verifiable information on this topic for an encyclopedic article?", "Is this topic fit or appropriate for an encyclopedia?", "If this topic were covered completely and throughly would it be worth reading?". In the case of people article I would also say "Is a single transitory cultural event that the person was involved in the only reason for the article to exist?" There are other questions things to consider other than if the topic or person meets some arbitrary bar of notability and I suspect that putting much effort into rigidly defining notability would exacerbate the tendency to ignore other considerations (like human dignity).

Dalf

Dalf,

Agree that more thought needs to go into these decisions.

Sydney