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?

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

We are not creating a neutral encyclopedia without addressing this issue.

Pete/Pcb21 wrote: Out of interest, exactly why is that article notable? Serious question. TBSDY

John Lee wrote: Inclusionists believe encyclopedia, notability be damned. That was not helpful. TBSDY _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Mark Richards wrote: 'Notable' 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(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Delirium wrote: 'Notable' underestimate just how much could start typing in using the obituary these are verifiable stories published drowning!". These are newspaper's archives), but 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(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Mark Richards wrote: 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(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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: articles, or I I to said are encyclopedia who _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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:

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(a)gawab.com> wrote: __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Websites with little traffic? Every blog in the world? RickK Rebecca <misfitgirl(a)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: all. that all, are definition. because which they written by human say, case keep each with one, not verifiable vanity they http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l finish. http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

"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: all. that are definition. because by case each not they http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l finish. http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Out of interest, exactly why is that article notable? Serious question. TBSDY _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l