The relentless discussion about deletion that I am just catching up with on this mailing list prompted to review a deletion decision that got on my nerves back in June. "Full nice handbag co" was a pathetic little article about a textile company in Hong Kong. It was never much of an article, but it was real, neutral, factual, verifiable. It was very narrowly VfDed (with a small majority of about 55-60% voting delete) on grounds of non-notability. Following deletion, I objected at VfU - my grounds for undeletion were that the reasons for deletion were so tenuous (see below) and the majority so small that we should have erred on the side of caution and kept the article
Notability is extremely subjective. To my mind, a manufacturing company of twelve years standing is more notable than a minor character in a Lord of the Rings book. But others disagree. The VfU eventually failed - both to get the article undeleted and to raise the issues about systematic biases of domain of knowledge of editors affecting deletion.
Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I came to the conclusion that I would be helping Wikipedia if I was bold and reinstated the article anyhow. Unfortunately good old RickK got in a right tizz about this. Rick and I have exchanged words that just about stay civil on our talk pages, and Theresa Knott helpfully suggested I come here to the mailing list (a kind of higher court than VfU if you will, and one arena more open to more philosophical/esoteric debates) to see if I want did was reasonable.
So here I am, throwing myself open to community opinion,
Pcb21
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
The relentless discussion about deletion that I am just catching up with on this mailing list prompted to review a deletion decision that got on my nerves back in June. "Full nice handbag co" was a pathetic little article about a textile company in Hong Kong. It was never much of an article, but it was real, neutral, factual, verifiable. It was very narrowly VfDed (with a small majority of about 55-60% voting delete) on grounds of non-notability. Following deletion, I objected at VfU - my grounds for undeletion were that the reasons for deletion were so tenuous (see below) and the majority so small that we should have erred on the side of caution and kept the article
I'm not sure if things have changed since I stopped being as heavily involved in it, but I was under the impression that a 55-60% margin wasn't considered enough to delete. I know I personally don't delete things unless it's more like a 75% margin or more. Perhaps someone erred?
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
I'm not sure if things have changed since I stopped being as heavily involved in it, but I was under the impression that a 55-60% margin wasn't considered enough to delete. I know I personally don't delete things unless it's more like a 75% margin or more. Perhaps someone erred?
Actually it was 14 delete votes to 8 keep votes, so 63% delete, which IS a little on the low side, although the late addition of a reply from the a Chinese Wikipedia editor (Duncharris asked them for advice), "Well, I live in Hong Kong, and I've never heard of it", may have swayed the admin's opinion.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archived_delete_debates/June_12#Full_... for the discussion.
I personally would have left it on VFD for someone else to action, I too prefer to only delete things with a 75%+ margin. I'll leave the controversial stuff for people who have been admins longer than a few months. :-)
Cheers! David...
Agreed. When I was working on VFD until I grew fed up of all the pettiness, I would either continue the discussion for a few days or keep the article in question if there was no consensus, which I considered to be at least 75%. If the margin of error was as close as, say, 14 and 8, I would probably keep it.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Delirium wrote:
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
The relentless discussion about deletion that I am just catching up with on this mailing list prompted to review a deletion decision that got on my nerves back in June. "Full nice handbag co" was a pathetic little article about a textile company in Hong Kong. It was never much of an article, but it was real, neutral, factual, verifiable. It was very narrowly VfDed (with a small majority of about 55-60% voting delete) on grounds of non-notability. Following deletion, I objected at VfU - my grounds for undeletion were that the reasons for deletion were so tenuous (see below) and the majority so small that we should have erred on the side of caution and kept the article
I'm not sure if things have changed since I stopped being as heavily involved in it, but I was under the impression that a 55-60% margin wasn't considered enough to delete. I know I personally don't delete things unless it's more like a 75% margin or more. Perhaps someone erred?
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I came to the conclusion that I would be helping Wikipedia if I was bold and reinstated the article anyhow. Unfortunately good old RickK got in a right tizz about this. Rick and I have exchanged words that just about stay civil on our talk pages, and Theresa Knott helpfully suggested I come here to the mailing list (a kind of higher court than VfU if you will, and one arena more open to more philosophical/esoteric debates) to see if I want did was reasonable.
If you believe the article should be undeleted, then argue the case on Votes for Undeletion. Otherwise you're just joining the recent cadre of inclusionists who are prepared to violate consensus when it goes against them.
-- ambi
If you believe the article should be undeleted, then argue the case on Votes for Undeletion. Otherwise you're just joining the recent cadre of inclusionists who are prepared to violate consensus when it goes against them.
-- ambi
Ambi, I *did* argue the case on VfU. The VfU process, *in my opinion*, failed because it failed to discuss whether the admin weighing up the original decision made a mistake or not. It became a rehash of the VfD debate, which is not the purpose of VfU.
Again, my central point is not addressed by any of the replies:
1) Notability is subjective.
2) It is possible that VfD voters have a collective bias in their subjective reading of notability.
3) Borderline candidates about some subjects (Asian manufacturing companies) get deleted whereas others (ogres that appear for one line in one book published years ago, but turned into a geek-popular film) get kept.
We are not creating a neutral encyclopedia without addressing this issue.
Pete
Pete/Pcb21 wrote
Again, my central point is not addressed by any of the replies:
Bear in mind that this area threatens to become the OverwhelmingTopic of this list.
- Notability is subjective.
Certainly, within limits.
- It is possible that VfD voters have a collective bias in their
subjective reading of notability.
Probably, within smaller limits.
- Borderline candidates about some subjects (Asian manufacturing
companies) get deleted whereas others (ogres that appear for one line in one book published years ago, but turned into a geek-popular film) get
kept.
I'll take your word for it.
We are not creating a neutral encyclopedia without addressing this issue.
I wouldn't say deletion was a major point about the 'skewed' nature of the WP-en content; certainly compared with the lack of strong submissions in neglected areas.
Charles
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
The relentless discussion about deletion that I am just catching up with on this mailing list prompted to review a deletion decision that got on my nerves back in June. "Full nice handbag co" was a pathetic little article about a textile company in Hong Kong. It was never much of an article, but it was real, neutral, factual, verifiable. It was very narrowly VfDed (with a small majority of about 55-60% voting delete) on grounds of non-notability. Following deletion, I objected at VfU - my grounds for undeletion were that the reasons for deletion were so tenuous (see below) and the majority so small that we should have erred on the side of caution and kept the article
Notability is extremely subjective. To my mind, a manufacturing company of twelve years standing is more notable than a minor character in a Lord of the Rings book. But others disagree. The VfU eventually failed - both to get the article undeleted and to raise the issues about systematic biases of domain of knowledge of editors affecting deletion.
Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I came to the conclusion that I would be helping Wikipedia if I was bold and reinstated the article anyhow. Unfortunately good old RickK got in a right tizz about this. Rick and I have exchanged words that just about stay civil on our talk pages, and Theresa Knott helpfully suggested I come here to the mailing list (a kind of higher court than VfU if you will, and one arena more open to more philosophical/esoteric debates) to see if I want did was reasonable.
So here I am, throwing myself open to community opinion,
Pcb21
Out of interest, exactly why is that article notable? Serious question.
TBSDY
Wow, no inclusionist's jumped on you for that yet? Inclusionists believe anything *verifiable* should be in an encyclopedia, notability be damned.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
The relentless discussion about deletion that I am just catching up with on this mailing list prompted to review a deletion decision that got on my nerves back in June. "Full nice handbag co" was a pathetic little article about a textile company in Hong Kong. It was never much of an article, but it was real, neutral, factual, verifiable. It was very narrowly VfDed (with a small majority of about 55-60% voting delete) on grounds of non-notability. Following deletion, I objected at VfU - my grounds for undeletion were that the reasons for deletion were so tenuous (see below) and the majority so small that we should have erred on the side of caution and kept the article
Notability is extremely subjective. To my mind, a manufacturing company of twelve years standing is more notable than a minor character in a Lord of the Rings book. But others disagree. The VfU eventually failed - both to get the article undeleted and to raise the issues about systematic biases of domain of knowledge of editors affecting deletion.
Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I came to the conclusion that I would be helping Wikipedia if I was bold and reinstated the article anyhow. Unfortunately good old RickK got in a right tizz about this. Rick and I have exchanged words that just about stay civil on our talk pages, and Theresa Knott helpfully suggested I come here to the mailing list (a kind of higher court than VfU if you will, and one arena more open to more philosophical/esoteric debates) to see if I want did was reasonable.
So here I am, throwing myself open to community opinion,
Pcb21
Out of interest, exactly why is that article notable? Serious question.
TBSDY
Yes, anything verifiable and factual should. 'Notable' is just someones POV about what they think is important.
Mark
--- "csherlock@ljh.com.au" csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
John Lee wrote:
Wow, no inclusionist's jumped on you for that yet?
Inclusionists believe
anything *verifiable* should be in an
encyclopedia, notability be damned.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
That was not helpful.
TBSDY
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Mark Richards wrote:
Yes, anything verifiable and factual should. 'Notable' is just someones POV about what they think is important.
I think you inclusionist folks severely underestimate just how much ridiculous stuff is verifiable and factual. I could start typing in entries for everyone who died in Atlanta each die, using the obituary section of the local newspaper as a source, and these are verifiable and factual. There are plenty of "human interest" stories published in the paper, like "family dog saves baby from drowning!". These are verifiable and factual (verifiable in the newspaper's archives), but not notable. Etc.
-Mark
Well, if you wanted to write a well referenced article on a baby that was saved from drowning by a family dog, and could really make it easily verifiable, I would not try to deleted it. I certainly don't think this should be our priority, but I don't think it would do any harm. No one who was not looking for it would find it in any event. Mark
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
Yes, anything verifiable and factual should.
'Notable'
is just someones POV about what they think is important.
I think you inclusionist folks severely underestimate just how much ridiculous stuff is verifiable and factual. I could start typing in entries for everyone who died in Atlanta each die, using the obituary section of the local newspaper as a source, and these are verifiable and factual. There are plenty of "human interest" stories published in the paper, like "family dog saves baby from drowning!". These are verifiable and factual (verifiable in the newspaper's archives), but not notable. Etc.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Delirium wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
Yes, anything verifiable and factual should. 'Notable' is just someones POV about what they think is important.
I think you inclusionist folks severely underestimate just how much ridiculous stuff is verifiable and factual. I could start typing in entries for everyone who died in Atlanta each die, using the obituary section of the local newspaper as a source, and these are verifiable and factual. There are plenty of "human interest" stories published in the paper, like "family dog saves baby from drowning!". These are verifiable and factual (verifiable in the newspaper's archives), but not notable.
How many instances can you cite of culling obituaries for material, or family dog stories? It seems pointless to generate arguments for the rejection of articles that nobody has written.
Ec
Exactly - this is a straw man. Mark
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
Yes, anything verifiable and factual should.
'Notable'
is just someones POV about what they think is important.
I think you inclusionist folks severely
underestimate just how much
ridiculous stuff is verifiable and factual. I
could start typing in
entries for everyone who died in Atlanta each die,
using the obituary
section of the local newspaper as a source, and
these are verifiable
and factual. There are plenty of "human interest"
stories published
in the paper, like "family dog saves baby from
drowning!". These are
verifiable and factual (verifiable in the
newspaper's archives), but
not notable.
How many instances can you cite of culling obituaries for material, or family dog stories? It seems pointless to generate arguments for the rejection of articles that nobody has written.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Mark Richards wrote:
Exactly - this is a straw man.
I don't see how it is a straw man at all. You said explicitly that there are no criteria besides verifiability that are acceptable. The entire contents of my local newspaper are verifiable, as they keep archives. Therefore, *anything* in my encyclopedia is a valid Wikipedia article, and if on a whim I decide to add anything from it, no matter how non-notable, you have no basis to delete it, because you reject notability as a criterion.
And there are many articles on Wikipedia like this that get deleted. There have been articles about college students who made Dean's List, which is verifiable from the University's website; articles about members of high school marching bands, which are verifiable from published lists of marching band members; etc. These all get deleted anyway, due to non-notability.
-Mark
It's a straw man because you are taking the case in dispute (schools) and claiming that if we keep schools, we will have to keep an article on each school band member.
There are existing rules to deal with vanity articles, and to the extent that we have a problem with them, they have been deleted as vanity.
Let's not confuse the issues of schools with some hypothetical deluge of articles about cheerleaders or dead cats.
If I have presented my case as an extreme one, then I have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do not support an article on each high school band member. I doubt that you could really write a verifiable and factual article on them that was not a vanity page anyway.
It's not that these people are not notable, they certianly are to some people, it is the fact that these would be vanity articles, I am not proposing to remove this criteria for deletion.
Mark
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
Exactly - this is a straw man.
I don't see how it is a straw man at all. You said explicitly that there are no criteria besides verifiability that are acceptable. The entire contents of my local newspaper are verifiable, as they keep archives. Therefore, *anything* in my encyclopedia is a valid Wikipedia article, and if on a whim I decide to add anything from it, no matter how non-notable, you have no basis to delete it, because you reject notability as a criterion.
And there are many articles on Wikipedia like this that get deleted. There have been articles about college students who made Dean's List, which is verifiable from the University's website; articles about members of high school marching bands, which are verifiable from published lists of marching band members; etc. These all get deleted anyway, due to non-notability.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity pages be eligible for deletion if the information therein was 100% verifiable and factual? Delirium said that this isn't a strawman because *we get 100% verifiable articles such as vanity pages which are deleted*. You argue in favour of their deletion, because they are vanity pages - what constitutes a vanity page? A page written by someone seeking glorification? But, why, the information's verifiable! Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of human knowledge? I honestly don't understand your paradoxical - dare I say, hypocritical - stance on this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
It's a straw man because you are taking the case in dispute (schools) and claiming that if we keep schools, we will have to keep an article on each school band member.
There are existing rules to deal with vanity articles, and to the extent that we have a problem with them, they have been deleted as vanity.
Let's not confuse the issues of schools with some hypothetical deluge of articles about cheerleaders or dead cats.
If I have presented my case as an extreme one, then I have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do not support an article on each high school band member. I doubt that you could really write a verifiable and factual article on them that was not a vanity page anyway.
It's not that these people are not notable, they certianly are to some people, it is the fact that these would be vanity articles, I am not proposing to remove this criteria for deletion.
Mark
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
Exactly - this is a straw man.
I don't see how it is a straw man at all. You said explicitly that there are no criteria besides verifiability that are acceptable. The entire contents of my local newspaper are verifiable, as they keep archives. Therefore, *anything* in my encyclopedia is a valid Wikipedia article, and if on a whim I decide to add anything from it, no matter how non-notable, you have no basis to delete it, because you reject notability as a criterion.
And there are many articles on Wikipedia like this that get deleted. There have been articles about college students who made Dean's List, which is verifiable from the University's website; articles about members of high school marching bands, which are verifiable from published lists of marching band members; etc. These all get deleted anyway, due to non-notability.
-Mark
John,
See [[Wikipedia:Vanity page]] and [[Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies]] - there are exceptions to the rule of verifiability and factuality in current policy.
To be clear, I am not advocating repealing these policies, simply for keeping factual, verifiable articles on places that are of interest to, and involve many thousands of people.
I can't help but feel that you are caricaturing my position.
Mark
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity pages be eligible for deletion if the information therein was 100% verifiable and factual? Delirium said that this isn't a strawman because *we get 100% verifiable articles such as vanity pages which are deleted*. You argue in favour of their deletion, because they are vanity pages - what constitutes a vanity page? A page written by someone seeking glorification? But, why, the information's verifiable! Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of human knowledge? I honestly don't understand your paradoxical - dare I say, hypocritical - stance on this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
It's a straw man because you are taking the case in dispute (schools) and claiming that if we keep schools, we will have to keep an article on each school band member.
There are existing rules to deal with vanity
articles,
and to the extent that we have a problem with them, they have been deleted as vanity.
Let's not confuse the issues of schools with some hypothetical deluge of articles about cheerleaders
or
dead cats.
If I have presented my case as an extreme one, then
I
have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do not support an article on each high school band member.
I
doubt that you could really write a verifiable and factual article on them that was not a vanity page anyway.
It's not that these people are not notable, they certianly are to some people, it is the fact that these would be vanity articles, I am not proposing
to
remove this criteria for deletion.
Mark
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
Exactly - this is a straw man.
I don't see how it is a straw man at all. You
said
explicitly that there are no criteria besides verifiability that
are
acceptable. The entire contents of my local newspaper are verifiable, as they keep archives. Therefore, *anything* in my
encyclopedia
is a valid Wikipedia article, and if on a whim I decide to add anything from it, no matter how non-notable, you have no basis to delete it, because you reject notability as a criterion.
And there are many articles on Wikipedia like this that get deleted. There have been articles about college students
who
made Dean's List, which is verifiable from the University's website; articles about members of high school marching bands, which are verifiable from published lists of marching band members; etc. These all get deleted anyway, due to non-notability.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I see nothing wrong with his position. There are multiple deletion criteria available. Each has its own definition. We can define a vanity page in terms of self-promotion or self-glorification. Verifiability is a different and independent criterion. Using the description of one criterion to determine the applicability of a different one is illogical.
Ec
John Lee wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity pages be eligible for deletion if the information therein was 100% verifiable and factual? Delirium said that this isn't a strawman because *we get 100% verifiable articles such as vanity pages which are deleted*. You argue in favour of their deletion, because they are vanity pages - what constitutes a vanity page? A page written by someone seeking glorification? But, why, the information's verifiable! Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of human knowledge? I honestly don't understand your paradoxical - dare I say, hypocritical - stance on this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
It's a straw man because you are taking the case in dispute (schools) and claiming that if we keep schools, we will have to keep an article on each school band member.
There are existing rules to deal with vanity articles, and to the extent that we have a problem with them, they have been deleted as vanity.
Let's not confuse the issues of schools with some hypothetical deluge of articles about cheerleaders or dead cats.
If I have presented my case as an extreme one, then I have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do not support an article on each high school band member. I doubt that you could really write a verifiable and factual article on them that was not a vanity page anyway.
It's not that these people are not notable, they certianly are to some people, it is the fact that these would be vanity articles, I am not proposing to remove this criteria for deletion.
Then I believe both of you have just admitted that "notability" is a valid criteria for inclusion/deletion. After all, just try reading the definition of vanity according to Wikipedia Mark linked to.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see nothing wrong with his position. There are multiple deletion criteria available. Each has its own definition. We can define a vanity page in terms of self-promotion or self-glorification. Verifiability is a different and independent criterion. Using the description of one criterion to determine the applicability of a different one is illogical.
Ec
John Lee wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity pages be eligible for deletion if the information therein was 100% verifiable and factual? Delirium said that this isn't a strawman because *we get 100% verifiable articles such as vanity pages which are deleted*. You argue in favour of their deletion, because they are vanity pages - what constitutes a vanity page? A page written by someone seeking glorification? But, why, the information's verifiable! Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of human knowledge? I honestly don't understand your paradoxical - dare I say, hypocritical - stance on this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
It's a straw man because you are taking the case in dispute (schools) and claiming that if we keep schools, we will have to keep an article on each school band member.
There are existing rules to deal with vanity articles, and to the extent that we have a problem with them, they have been deleted as vanity.
Let's not confuse the issues of schools with some hypothetical deluge of articles about cheerleaders or dead cats.
If I have presented my case as an extreme one, then I have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do not support an article on each high school band member. I doubt that you could really write a verifiable and factual article on them that was not a vanity page anyway.
It's not that these people are not notable, they certianly are to some people, it is the fact that these would be vanity articles, I am not proposing to remove this criteria for deletion.
Not at (though I am only answering now for what I wrote). I spoke of defining different criteria. Nowhere in my response did I use the word "valid", not even for those that I do accept as valid. Being able to define a criterion is still a step short of determining its validity. Ec
John Lee wrote:
Then I believe both of you have just admitted that "notability" is a valid criteria for inclusion/deletion. After all, just try reading the definition of vanity according to Wikipedia Mark linked to.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see nothing wrong with his position. There are multiple deletion criteria available. Each has its own definition. We can define a vanity page in terms of self-promotion or self-glorification. Verifiability is a different and independent criterion. Using the description of one criterion to determine the applicability of a different one is illogical.
Ec
John Lee wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity pages be eligible for deletion if the information therein was 100% verifiable and factual? Delirium said that this isn't a strawman because *we get 100% verifiable articles such as vanity pages which are deleted*. You argue in favour of their deletion, because they are vanity pages - what constitutes a vanity page? A page written by someone seeking glorification? But, why, the information's verifiable! Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of human knowledge? I honestly don't understand your paradoxical - dare I say, hypocritical - stance on this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
It's a straw man because you are taking the case in dispute (schools) and claiming that if we keep schools, we will have to keep an article on each school band member.
There are existing rules to deal with vanity articles, and to the extent that we have a problem with them, they have been deleted as vanity.
Let's not confuse the issues of schools with some hypothetical deluge of articles about cheerleaders or dead cats.
If I have presented my case as an extreme one, then I have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do not support an article on each high school band member. I doubt that you could really write a verifiable and factual article on them that was not a vanity page anyway.
It's not that these people are not notable, they certianly are to some people, it is the fact that these would be vanity articles, I am not proposing to remove this criteria for deletion.
The vanity criteria are well established and apply only to biography. I don't see the connection at all. I oppose taking criteria that were designed for biography and applying them to places, buildings, artwork, or other things.
Mark
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Then I believe both of you have just admitted that "notability" is a valid criteria for inclusion/deletion. After all, just try reading the definition of vanity according to Wikipedia Mark linked to.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see nothing wrong with his position. There are
multiple deletion
criteria available. Each has its own definition.
We can define a
vanity page in terms of self-promotion or
self-glorification.
Verifiability is a different and independent
criterion. Using the
description of one criterion to determine the
applicability of a
different one is illogical.
Ec
John Lee wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity
pages be eligible for
deletion if the information therein was 100%
verifiable and factual?
Delirium said that this isn't a strawman because
*we get 100%
verifiable articles such as vanity pages which
are deleted*. You
argue in favour of their deletion, because they
are vanity pages -
what constitutes a vanity page? A page written by
someone seeking
glorification? But, why, the information's
verifiable! Isn't
Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of human
knowledge? I honestly
don't understand your paradoxical - dare I say,
hypocritical - stance
on this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
It's a straw man because you are taking the case
in
dispute (schools) and claiming that if we keep schools, we will have to keep an article on each school band member.
There are existing rules to deal with vanity
articles,
and to the extent that we have a problem with
them,
they have been deleted as vanity.
Let's not confuse the issues of schools with
some
hypothetical deluge of articles about
cheerleaders or
dead cats.
If I have presented my case as an extreme one,
then I
have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do not support an article on each high school band
member. I
doubt that you could really write a verifiable
and
factual article on them that was not a vanity
page
anyway.
It's not that these people are not notable, they certianly are to some people, it is the fact
that
these would be vanity articles, I am not
proposing to
remove this criteria for deletion.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
What about garage bands? Vanity conlangs and programming languages? Etc, etc.
-- ambi
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:33:04 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
The vanity criteria are well established and apply only to biography. I don't see the connection at all. I oppose taking criteria that were designed for biography and applying them to places, buildings, artwork, or other things.
Mark
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Then I believe both of you have just admitted that "notability" is a valid criteria for inclusion/deletion. After all, just try reading the definition of vanity according to Wikipedia Mark linked to.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see nothing wrong with his position. There are
multiple deletion
criteria available. Each has its own definition.
We can define a
vanity page in terms of self-promotion or
self-glorification.
Verifiability is a different and independent
criterion. Using the
description of one criterion to determine the
applicability of a
different one is illogical.
Ec
John Lee wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity
pages be eligible for
deletion if the information therein was 100%
verifiable and factual?
Delirium said that this isn't a strawman because
*we get 100%
verifiable articles such as vanity pages which
are deleted*. You
argue in favour of their deletion, because they
are vanity pages -
what constitutes a vanity page? A page written by
someone seeking
glorification? But, why, the information's
verifiable! Isn't
Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of human
knowledge? I honestly
don't understand your paradoxical - dare I say,
hypocritical - stance
on this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
It's a straw man because you are taking the case
in
dispute (schools) and claiming that if we keep schools, we will have to keep an article on each school band member.
There are existing rules to deal with vanity
articles,
and to the extent that we have a problem with
them,
they have been deleted as vanity.
Let's not confuse the issues of schools with
some
hypothetical deluge of articles about
cheerleaders or
dead cats.
If I have presented my case as an extreme one,
then I
have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do not support an article on each high school band
member. I
doubt that you could really write a verifiable
and
factual article on them that was not a vanity
page
anyway.
It's not that these people are not notable, they certianly are to some people, it is the fact
that
these would be vanity articles, I am not
proposing to
remove this criteria for deletion.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Websites with little traffic? Every blog in the world?
RickK
Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote: What about garage bands? Vanity conlangs and programming languages? Etc, etc.
-- ambi
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:33:04 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards wrote:
The vanity criteria are well established and apply only to biography. I don't see the connection at all. I oppose taking criteria that were designed for biography and applying them to places, buildings, artwork, or other things.
Mark
--- John Lee wrote:
Then I believe both of you have just admitted that "notability" is a valid criteria for inclusion/deletion. After all, just try reading the definition of vanity according to Wikipedia Mark linked to.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see nothing wrong with his position. There are
multiple deletion
criteria available. Each has its own definition.
We can define a
vanity page in terms of self-promotion or
self-glorification.
Verifiability is a different and independent
criterion. Using the
description of one criterion to determine the
applicability of a
different one is illogical.
Ec
John Lee wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity
pages be eligible for
deletion if the information therein was 100%
verifiable and factual?
Delirium said that this isn't a strawman because
*we get 100%
verifiable articles such as vanity pages which
are deleted*. You
argue in favour of their deletion, because they
are vanity pages -
what constitutes a vanity page? A page written by
someone seeking
glorification? But, why, the information's
verifiable! Isn't
Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of human
knowledge? I honestly
don't understand your paradoxical - dare I say,
hypocritical - stance
on this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
It's a straw man because you are taking the case
in
dispute (schools) and claiming that if we keep schools, we will have to keep an article on each school band member.
There are existing rules to deal with vanity
articles,
and to the extent that we have a problem with
them,
they have been deleted as vanity.
Let's not confuse the issues of schools with
some
hypothetical deluge of articles about
cheerleaders or
dead cats.
If I have presented my case as an extreme one,
then I
have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do not support an article on each high school band
member. I
doubt that you could really write a verifiable
and
factual article on them that was not a vanity
page
anyway.
It's not that these people are not notable, they certianly are to some people, it is the fact
that
these would be vanity articles, I am not
proposing to
remove this criteria for deletion.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
As usual, more strawmen. No one is suggesting listing these things.
Let me say that again. No one is suggesting listing these things.
Mark
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
Websites with little traffic? Every blog in the world?
RickK
Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote: What about garage bands? Vanity conlangs and programming languages? Etc, etc.
-- ambi
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:33:04 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards wrote:
The vanity criteria are well established and apply only to biography. I don't see the connection at
all.
I oppose taking criteria that were designed for biography and applying them to places, buildings, artwork, or other things.
Mark
--- John Lee wrote:
Then I believe both of you have just admitted
that
"notability" is a valid criteria for inclusion/deletion. After
all,
just try reading the definition of vanity according to Wikipedia Mark linked to.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see nothing wrong with his position. There
are
multiple deletion
criteria available. Each has its own
definition.
We can define a
vanity page in terms of self-promotion or
self-glorification.
Verifiability is a different and independent
criterion. Using the
description of one criterion to determine the
applicability of a
different one is illogical.
Ec
John Lee wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity
pages be eligible for
deletion if the information therein was 100%
verifiable and factual?
Delirium said that this isn't a strawman
because
*we get 100%
verifiable articles such as vanity pages
which
are deleted*. You
argue in favour of their deletion, because
they
are vanity pages -
what constitutes a vanity page? A page
written by
someone seeking
glorification? But, why, the information's
verifiable! Isn't
Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of
human
knowledge? I honestly
don't understand your paradoxical - dare I
say,
hypocritical - stance
on this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
It's a straw man because you are taking the
case
in
dispute (schools) and claiming that if we
keep
schools, we will have to keep an article on
each
school band member.
There are existing rules to deal with vanity
articles,
and to the extent that we have a problem
with
them,
they have been deleted as vanity.
Let's not confuse the issues of schools with
some
hypothetical deluge of articles about
cheerleaders or
dead cats.
If I have presented my case as an extreme
one,
then I
have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do
not
support an article on each high school band
member. I
doubt that you could really write a
verifiable
and
factual article on them that was not a
vanity
page
anyway.
It's not that these people are not notable,
they
certianly are to some people, it is the fact
that
these would be vanity articles, I am not
proposing to
remove this criteria for deletion.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Garage bands would mostly seem to be covered by vanity pages, I don't know what a vanity conlang is, and programming languages? If they are real, I would probably keep them. Mark
--- Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
What about garage bands? Vanity conlangs and programming languages? Etc, etc.
-- ambi
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:33:04 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
The vanity criteria are well established and apply only to biography. I don't see the connection at
all.
I oppose taking criteria that were designed for biography and applying them to places, buildings, artwork, or other things.
Mark
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Then I believe both of you have just admitted
that
"notability" is a valid criteria for inclusion/deletion. After
all,
just try reading the definition of vanity according to Wikipedia Mark linked to.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see nothing wrong with his position. There
are
multiple deletion
criteria available. Each has its own
definition.
We can define a
vanity page in terms of self-promotion or
self-glorification.
Verifiability is a different and independent
criterion. Using the
description of one criterion to determine the
applicability of a
different one is illogical.
Ec
John Lee wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity
pages be eligible for
deletion if the information therein was 100%
verifiable and factual?
Delirium said that this isn't a strawman
because
*we get 100%
verifiable articles such as vanity pages
which
are deleted*. You
argue in favour of their deletion, because
they
are vanity pages -
what constitutes a vanity page? A page
written by
someone seeking
glorification? But, why, the information's
verifiable! Isn't
Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of
human
knowledge? I honestly
don't understand your paradoxical - dare I
say,
hypocritical - stance
on this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
It's a straw man because you are taking the
case
in
dispute (schools) and claiming that if we
keep
schools, we will have to keep an article on
each
school band member.
There are existing rules to deal with vanity
articles,
and to the extent that we have a problem
with
them,
they have been deleted as vanity.
Let's not confuse the issues of schools with
some
hypothetical deluge of articles about
cheerleaders or
dead cats.
If I have presented my case as an extreme
one,
then I
have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do
not
support an article on each high school band
member. I
doubt that you could really write a
verifiable
and
factual article on them that was not a
vanity
page
anyway.
It's not that these people are not notable,
they
certianly are to some people, it is the fact
that
these would be vanity articles, I am not
proposing to
remove this criteria for deletion.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Vanity conlang - someone makes up their own language, and writes to write about it on Wikipedia Vanity programming language - someone makes up their own programming language, and wants to write about it on Wikipedia (note that these aren't often actually used by anyone else...) And what about micronations?
(I'm just trying to explore how far you think vanity stretches into these areas, and how far our views are actually apart).
-- ambi
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 08:19:19 -0800 (PST), Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
Garage bands would mostly seem to be covered by vanity pages, I don't know what a vanity conlang is, and programming languages? If they are real, I would probably keep them. Mark
--- Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
What about garage bands? Vanity conlangs and programming languages? Etc, etc.
-- ambi
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:33:04 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
The vanity criteria are well established and apply only to biography. I don't see the connection at
all.
I oppose taking criteria that were designed for biography and applying them to places, buildings, artwork, or other things.
Mark
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Then I believe both of you have just admitted
that
"notability" is a valid criteria for inclusion/deletion. After
all,
just try reading the definition of vanity according to Wikipedia Mark linked to.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see nothing wrong with his position. There
are
multiple deletion
criteria available. Each has its own
definition.
We can define a
vanity page in terms of self-promotion or
self-glorification.
Verifiability is a different and independent
criterion. Using the
description of one criterion to determine the
applicability of a
different one is illogical.
Ec
John Lee wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity
pages be eligible for
deletion if the information therein was 100%
verifiable and factual?
Delirium said that this isn't a strawman
because
*we get 100%
verifiable articles such as vanity pages
which
are deleted*. You
argue in favour of their deletion, because
they
are vanity pages -
what constitutes a vanity page? A page
written by
someone seeking
glorification? But, why, the information's
verifiable! Isn't
Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of
human
knowledge? I honestly
don't understand your paradoxical - dare I
say,
hypocritical - stance
on this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
> It's a straw man because you are taking the
case
in
> dispute (schools) and claiming that if we
keep
> schools, we will have to keep an article on
each
> school band member. > > There are existing rules to deal with vanity
articles,
> and to the extent that we have a problem
with
them,
> they have been deleted as vanity. > > Let's not confuse the issues of schools with
some
> hypothetical deluge of articles about
cheerleaders or
> dead cats. > > If I have presented my case as an extreme
one,
then I
> have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do
not
> support an article on each high school band
member. I
> doubt that you could really write a
verifiable
and
> factual article on them that was not a
vanity
page
> anyway. > > It's not that these people are not notable,
they
> certianly are to some people, it is the fact
that
> these would be vanity articles, I am not
proposing to
> remove this criteria for deletion.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
"A page dedicated to a girlfriend, a family pet, or a social group at a high school can also be a vanity page." - [[Wikipedia:Vanity page]]
I'd take that as pretty good evidence that vanity pages aren't just biography, actually.
Did you have any other policy you want to make up, or are you done for this debate?
-Snowspinner
On Oct 30, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
The vanity criteria are well established and apply only to biography. I don't see the connection at all. I oppose taking criteria that were designed for biography and applying them to places, buildings, artwork, or other things.
Mark
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Then I believe both of you have just admitted that "notability" is a valid criteria for inclusion/deletion. After all, just try reading the definition of vanity according to Wikipedia Mark linked to.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see nothing wrong with his position. There are
multiple deletion
criteria available. Each has its own definition.
We can define a
vanity page in terms of self-promotion or
self-glorification.
Verifiability is a different and independent
criterion. Using the
description of one criterion to determine the
applicability of a
different one is illogical.
Ec
John Lee wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity
pages be eligible for
deletion if the information therein was 100%
verifiable and factual?
Delirium said that this isn't a strawman because
*we get 100%
verifiable articles such as vanity pages which
are deleted*. You
argue in favour of their deletion, because they
are vanity pages -
what constitutes a vanity page? A page written by
someone seeking
glorification? But, why, the information's
verifiable! Isn't
Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of human
knowledge? I honestly
don't understand your paradoxical - dare I say,
hypocritical - stance
on this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
It's a straw man because you are taking the case
in
dispute (schools) and claiming that if we keep schools, we will have to keep an article on each school band member.
There are existing rules to deal with vanity
articles,
and to the extent that we have a problem with
them,
they have been deleted as vanity.
Let's not confuse the issues of schools with
some
hypothetical deluge of articles about
cheerleaders or
dead cats.
If I have presented my case as an extreme one,
then I
have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do not support an article on each high school band
member. I
doubt that you could really write a verifiable
and
factual article on them that was not a vanity
page
anyway.
It's not that these people are not notable, they certianly are to some people, it is the fact
that
these would be vanity articles, I am not
proposing to
remove this criteria for deletion.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Make up? I'm not sure I understand you. I'm not going to argue whether or not my usage of the word biography was entirely correct, the vantiy page meaning is clear, they cover details of people's personal lives. I don't really understand you point. Mark
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"A page dedicated to a girlfriend, a family pet, or a social group at a high school can also be a vanity page." - [[Wikipedia:Vanity page]]
I'd take that as pretty good evidence that vanity pages aren't just biography, actually.
Did you have any other policy you want to make up, or are you done for this debate?
-Snowspinner
On Oct 30, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
The vanity criteria are well established and apply only to biography. I don't see the connection at
all.
I oppose taking criteria that were designed for biography and applying them to places, buildings, artwork, or other things.
Mark
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Then I believe both of you have just admitted
that
"notability" is a valid criteria for inclusion/deletion. After all, just try reading the definition of vanity according to Wikipedia Mark linked to.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see nothing wrong with his position. There
are
multiple deletion
criteria available. Each has its own
definition.
We can define a
vanity page in terms of self-promotion or
self-glorification.
Verifiability is a different and independent
criterion. Using the
description of one criterion to determine the
applicability of a
different one is illogical.
Ec
John Lee wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand - why would vanity
pages be eligible for
deletion if the information therein was 100%
verifiable and factual?
Delirium said that this isn't a strawman
because
*we get 100%
verifiable articles such as vanity pages which
are deleted*. You
argue in favour of their deletion, because they
are vanity pages -
what constitutes a vanity page? A page written
by
someone seeking
glorification? But, why, the information's
verifiable! Isn't
Wikipedia supposed to be a compendium of human
knowledge? I honestly
don't understand your paradoxical - dare I say,
hypocritical - stance
on this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
It's a straw man because you are taking the
case
in
dispute (schools) and claiming that if we keep schools, we will have to keep an article on
each
school band member.
There are existing rules to deal with vanity
articles,
and to the extent that we have a problem with
them,
they have been deleted as vanity.
Let's not confuse the issues of schools with
some
hypothetical deluge of articles about
cheerleaders or
dead cats.
If I have presented my case as an extreme one,
then I
have misrepresented my aims. I certainly do
not
support an article on each high school band
member. I
doubt that you could really write a verifiable
and
factual article on them that was not a vanity
page
anyway.
It's not that these people are not notable,
they
certianly are to some people, it is the fact
that
these would be vanity articles, I am not
proposing to
remove this criteria for deletion.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
The relentless discussion about deletion that I am just catching up with on this mailing list prompted to review a deletion decision that got on my nerves back in June. "Full nice handbag co" was a pathetic little article about a textile company in Hong Kong. It was never much of an article, but it was real, neutral, factual, verifiable. It was very narrowly VfDed (with a small majority of about 55-60% voting delete) on grounds of non-notability. Following deletion, I objected at VfU - my grounds for undeletion were that the reasons for deletion were so tenuous (see below) and the majority so small that we should have erred on the side of caution and kept the article
Notability is extremely subjective. To my mind, a manufacturing company of twelve years standing is more notable than a minor character in a Lord of the Rings book. But others disagree. The VfU eventually failed - both to get the article undeleted and to raise the issues about systematic biases of domain of knowledge of editors affecting deletion.
Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I came to the conclusion that I would be helping Wikipedia if I was bold and reinstated the article anyhow. Unfortunately good old RickK got in a right tizz about this. Rick and I have exchanged words that just about stay civil on our talk pages, and Theresa Knott helpfully suggested I come here to the mailing list (a kind of higher court than VfU if you will, and one arena more open to more philosophical/esoteric debates) to see if I want did was reasonable.
So here I am, throwing myself open to community opinion,
Pcb21
Out of interest, exactly why is that article notable? Serious question.
Notability is irrelevant. There's bugger-all that's serious about that question.
Ec
It doesn't matter, because notability has never been a criteria for keeping something. It is factual and verifiable. Mark
Out of interest, exactly why is that article notable? Serious question.
TBSDY
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail