G'day Steve,
On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
As for "an article with no claim to notability", I actually have no idea what that phrase means.
An article has to establish the notability of its subject. If it doesn't do that, it's subject to speedy deletion.
...I recite.
No, it has to *assert* the notability of its subject. When clearing up CAT:CSD I see a lot of speedy taggings where the tagger simply figured "sure, there's an assertion of notability there, but I don't think it's good enough". Wrong.
The question of whether an article establishes notability is not one that can, or should, be answered by a single admin working very very fast to delete as much stuff as quickly as possible. Unfortunately there are a few admins who seem to think "well, it's tagged for speedy, who am I to judge? That would be elitist." Oh, and let's not forget the non-admin CVUers who encourage that view ...
<snip/>
Cheers,
On 5/4/06, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Steve,
On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
As for "an article with no claim to notability", I actually have no idea what that phrase means.
An article has to establish the notability of its subject. If it doesn't do that, it's subject to speedy deletion.
...I recite.
No, it has to *assert* the notability of its subject. When clearing up CAT:CSD I see a lot of speedy taggings where the tagger simply figured "sure, there's an assertion of notability there, but I don't think it's good enough". Wrong.
The question of whether an article establishes notability is not one that can, or should, be answered by a single admin working very very fast to delete as much stuff as quickly as possible. Unfortunately there are a few admins who seem to think "well, it's tagged for speedy, who am I to judge? That would be elitist." Oh, and let's not forget the non-admin CVUers who encourage that view ...
<snip/>
Cheers,
-- MarkGallagher
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Mark,
You are 100% correct. While working as an Admin on speedy deletion, I often come across articles which contain assertions of notability.
In such cases, I do some quick research on verifiable sources:
a) if there are assertions of notability which are not immediately available I substitute a prod notice for a CSD nomination and make a note on the talk page so people have five days to find sources and add them;
b) if I can find verifiable evidence to assert notability, I remove the CSD tag and add something to the talk page - for example, a New York artist was speedied yesterday and with quick research, I discovered a New York Times review of an exhibition by the artist and added it to the article.
I also check the what links here even for articles where there is no assertion of notability. If there is a link, I normally rewrite the article to refer to the person linked to. I have created stubs on a Minnesota state politician, a US Olympic swimmer and a New Zealand cricketer amongst others.
It means that fewer articles are deleted but we add information on more notable topics and help to create an encyclopedia. I try to follow the precept of "If in doubt, don't delete".
Regards
*Keith Old* User:Capitalistroadster
Uh, I'm one of said non-admin CVU-ers, and I don't encourage that view. On the other hand, I could CSD a half dozen highly notable subjects on wikipedia simply because the articles make no assertion of the notablity. The fact is, that the vast majority of speedy deletions are shite articles, either vandalism/vanity, myspace, external redirects, etc. Are you saying those shouldn't be speedied? We all know that AfD is totally free from vote-stacking and any other forum of corruption. *cough*I
-swatjester
On 5/3/06, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Steve,
On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
As for "an article with no claim to notability", I actually have no idea what that phrase means.
An article has to establish the notability of its subject. If it doesn't do that, it's subject to speedy deletion.
...I recite.
No, it has to *assert* the notability of its subject. When clearing up CAT:CSD I see a lot of speedy taggings where the tagger simply figured "sure, there's an assertion of notability there, but I don't think it's good enough". Wrong.
The question of whether an article establishes notability is not one that can, or should, be answered by a single admin working very very fast to delete as much stuff as quickly as possible. Unfortunately there are a few admins who seem to think "well, it's tagged for speedy, who am I to judge? That would be elitist." Oh, and let's not forget the non-admin CVUers who encourage that view ...
<snip/>
Cheers,
-- MarkGallagher
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
[irritating top-posting fixed]
On 5/3/06, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
The question of whether an article establishes notability is not one that can, or should, be answered by a single admin working very very fast to delete as much stuff as quickly as possible. Unfortunately there are a few admins who seem to think "well, it's tagged for speedy, who am I to judge? That would be elitist." Oh, and let's not forget the non-admin CVUers who encourage that view ...
Uh, I'm one of said non-admin CVU-ers, and I don't encourage that view. On the other hand, I could CSD a half dozen highly notable subjects on wikipedia simply because the articles make no assertion of the notablity. The fact is, that the vast majority of speedy deletions are shite articles, either vandalism/vanity, myspace, external redirects, etc. Are you saying those shouldn't be speedied? We all know that AfD is totally free from vote-stacking and any other forum of corruption. *cough*I
Nothing wrong with non-admins doing RC/newpage/etc. patrol; I did it myself for ages before adminship was thrust upon me. Being a CVU member, eh, well, nobody's perfect.
You can't take the half the sentence in isolation. I was referring specifically to "non-admin CVUers who encourage [the view that anything tagged for speedy *must* be deleted]". A non-admin CVUer who doesn't encourage that view is, therefore, beyond my scope.
As for "the fact is ..." umm, yes ... I *know*, quite well, what the articles that usually crop up in CAT:CSD look like. But thanks for the tip anyway. I speedy dozens of articles every time I go RC patrolling or (more often) clearing out CSD or (surprisingly) reading the latest list of AfD nominations ... and despite this, there's still several articles that nobody in their right mind would want to speedy, but someone's tagged them anyway. Oh, and often you get someone with "CVU member" proudly displayed on their userpage complaining that you've disrupted their hard work by refusing to delete someone else's!
On 04/05/06, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
As for "an article with no claim to notability", I actually have no idea what that phrase means.
An article has to establish the notability of its subject. If it doesn't do that, it's subject to speedy deletion.
...I recite.
No, it has to *assert* the notability of its subject. When clearing up CAT:CSD I see a lot of speedy taggings where the tagger simply figured "sure, there's an assertion of notability there, but I don't think it's good enough". Wrong.
I recited badly.
Steve
On 5/3/06, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Steve,
On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
As for "an article with no claim to notability", I actually have no idea what that phrase means.
An article has to establish the notability of its subject. If it doesn't do that, it's subject to speedy deletion.
...I recite.
No, it has to *assert* the notability of its subject. When clearing up CAT:CSD I see a lot of speedy taggings where the tagger simply figured "sure, there's an assertion of notability there, but I don't think it's good enough". Wrong.
How does an article go about asserting the notability of its subject? What would be an example of an article which asserts notability but doesn't establish it?
Anthony
On 5/4/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/3/06, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Steve,
On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
As for "an article with no claim to notability", I actually have no idea what that phrase means.
An article has to establish the notability of its subject. If it doesn't do that, it's subject to speedy deletion.
...I recite.
No, it has to *assert* the notability of its subject. When clearing up CAT:CSD I see a lot of speedy taggings where the tagger simply figured "sure, there's an assertion of notability there, but I don't think it's good enough". Wrong.
How does an article go about asserting the notability of its subject? What would be an example of an article which asserts notability but doesn't establish it?
Anthony
Isn't the very fact that an article is written about a subject an assertion of the notability of the subject?
Anthony
----- Original Message ---- From: Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org
How does an article go about asserting the notability of its subject? What would be an example of an article which asserts notability but doesn't establish it?
Those poor fellows who make music in garages in suburban towns in the American Midwest seem to be a particular favourite target, so let's give an example involving them:
" '''Hormonal Screamings'' is a rock band hailing from Houghton, Michigan. Next year they are going to take over the world. "
Editors would be permitted to delete that.
On 5/4/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
----- Original Message ---- From: Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org
How does an article go about asserting the notability of its subject? What would be an example of an article which asserts notability but doesn't establish it?
Those poor fellows who make music in garages in suburban towns in the American Midwest seem to be a particular favourite target, so let's give an example involving them:
" '''Hormonal Screamings'' is a rock band hailing from Houghton, Michigan. Next year they are going to take over the world. "
Editors would be permitted to delete that.
So that's an example of an article which you feel *doesn't* assert notability. It still doesn't answer the question of what it means to assert notability, and it isn't an example of an article which asserts notability but doesn't establish it.
I still have no idea what it means to "assert notability" or what "an article with no claim to notability" is.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/4/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
----- Original Message ---- From: Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org
How does an article go about asserting the notability of its subject? What would be an example of an article which asserts notability but doesn't establish it?
Those poor fellows who make music in garages in suburban towns in the American Midwest seem to be a particular favourite target, so let's give an example involving them:
" '''Hormonal Screamings'' is a rock band hailing from Houghton, Michigan. Next year they are going to take over the world. "
So that's an example of an article which you feel *doesn't* assert notability. It still doesn't answer the question of what it means to assert notability, and it isn't an example of an article which asserts notability but doesn't establish it.
No, it does assert notability -- it's just that the assertion is pretty weak. Per [[WP:VAIN]], patently absurd assertions (such as "Joe Smith is the King of the United States") do not need to be considered. The assertion given above, being an unsubstantiated claim about the future, might perhaps be considered such. That said, I'd personally do at least a background check to see if there's more to the claim than that; if the claim was made by a reliable and/or influential external source, that in itself would establish some degree of notability.
Basically, this comes down to a form of assuming good faith: while it is true that articles without an assertion of notability may be deleted without further ado, it is prudent for the admin (and/or the nominator) to perform at least a cursory check to see if a plausible claim to notability can be found off-wiki, and, if so, to add it to the article.
For example, an article that only said "John Doe is a chemist" would technically be speediable. However, if a Google search turned up the fact that he's also a Nobel prize winner, a reasonable response would be to amend the article to say so rather than deleting it.
I still have no idea what it means to "assert notability" or what "an article with no claim to notability" is.
A typical article with no claim to notability might be something like:
"Joe Smith (b. 1989) is a student at the Whateverville high school. He plays football and listens to Red Hot Chili Peppers. He's a really great guy."
On 5/9/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/4/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
'''Hormonal Screamings'' is a rock band hailing from Houghton, Michigan. Next year they are going to take over the world. "
So that's an example of an article which you feel *doesn't* assert notability. It still doesn't answer the question of what it means to assert notability, and it isn't an example of an article which asserts notability but doesn't establish it.
No, it does assert notability -- it's just that the assertion is pretty weak. Per [[WP:VAIN]], patently absurd assertions (such as "Joe Smith is the King of the United States") do not need to be considered. The assertion given above, being an unsubstantiated claim about the future, might perhaps be considered such.
But the claim that they are a rock band hailing from Houghton, Michigan is not about the future, and is not patently absurd.
For example, an article that only said "John Doe is a chemist" would technically be speediable.
Only if you assume that being a chemist is not a claim to notability.
I still have no idea what it means to "assert notability" or what "an article with no claim to notability" is.
A typical article with no claim to notability might be something like:
"Joe Smith (b. 1989) is a student at the Whateverville high school. He plays football and listens to Red Hot Chili Peppers. He's a really great guy."
I'd say that has plenty of claims to notability, but is patently absurd.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/9/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/4/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
'''Hormonal Screamings'' is a rock band hailing from Houghton, Michigan. Next year they are going to take over the world.
So that's an example of an article which you feel *doesn't* assert notability. It still doesn't answer the question of what it means to assert notability, and it isn't an example of an article which asserts notability but doesn't establish it.
No, it does assert notability -- it's just that the assertion is pretty weak. Per [[WP:VAIN]], patently absurd assertions (such as "Joe Smith is the King of the United States") do not need to be considered. The assertion given above, being an unsubstantiated claim about the future, might perhaps be considered such.
But the claim that they are a rock band hailing from Houghton, Michigan is not about the future, and is not patently absurd.
Yes, but being a rock band does not make them notable, since there are millions of rock bands and we're not interested in covering them all. As for being from Houghton, Michigan, there doesn't seem to be any reason to suspect that bands from that town would, as a class, somehow be statistically different from bands from any other town.
For example, an article that only said "John Doe is a chemist" would technically be speediable.
Only if you assume that being a chemist is not a claim to notability.
Right. I don't consider being a chemist a claim to notability, since, again, there are millions of chemists and we (Wikipedia editors) don't generally feel they should all have Wikipedia articles merely because they are chemists.
Of course, the line can be fuzzy. We don't try to have articles on all humans, so being a human is not an assertion of notability per se. On the other hand, we do try to have articles on all presidents of major countries, so being a president does make one notable. But does being a cabinet minister make one notable? How about a member of parliament? Member of a town council? Those are judgement calls, and in such cases other issues may ultimately outweigh notability.
Similarly, it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia should have articles on all Nobel laureates, so being one automatically makes one notable. It's equally obvious that Wikipedia should not have articles on all students, -- probably not even on all grad students -- so being a student does not make one notable. But is a Ph.D. enough to make one notable? Some feel it is, some don't.
A typical article with no claim to notability might be something like:
"Joe Smith (b. 1989) is a student at the Whateverville high school. He plays football and listens to Red Hot Chili Peppers. He's a really great guy."
I'd say that has plenty of claims to notability, but is patently absurd.
You seem to be using curious definitions of notability and absurdity. To me there's nothing absurd about the description; such a description is quite likely to be true (and even mostly verifiable), except maybe for the subjective assertion in the end.
On the other hand, the description places Joe Smith in a number of categories (people born in 1989, students of Whateverville high school, football players, people who listen to RHCP, really great guys), none of which we believe Wikipedia should be a comprehensive index of. So none of them count as claims of notability. The same, also, goes for any intersections of the categories: we don't aim to have articles on all football players who listen to RHCP either.
Of course, failing to assert notability does not mean an article *must* be deleted. But let's face it, the article I gave as an example has nothing else going for it either. As Wikipedia generally operates on the presumption that biographies of random people should _not_ be included unless there is a particular reason for it, the default for such articles, in the absence of any generally accepted reason for keeping, is to delete.
(In other fields it's different: for example, articles on animal or plant species are considered worth keeping by default, even if they make no claims of notability. One might say that species are consider notable per se, but that's perhaps not _quite_ correct either, since we don't really aim to catalog all species known to man in Wikipedia, at least not in the near future. It might be more accurate to say that, in the case of species -- and most other non-biographical topics -- the default presumption is inclusion rather than exclusion. In any case, the distinction is hairline thin, and might not even exist outside my own head. But that's pretty much how I see it.)
On 5/9/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/9/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/4/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
'''Hormonal Screamings'' is a rock band hailing from Houghton, Michigan. Next year they are going to take over the world.
So that's an example of an article which you feel *doesn't* assert notability. It still doesn't answer the question of what it means to assert notability, and it isn't an example of an article which asserts notability but doesn't establish it.
No, it does assert notability -- it's just that the assertion is pretty weak. Per [[WP:VAIN]], patently absurd assertions (such as "Joe Smith is the King of the United States") do not need to be considered. The assertion given above, being an unsubstantiated claim about the future, might perhaps be considered such.
But the claim that they are a rock band hailing from Houghton, Michigan is not about the future, and is not patently absurd.
Yes, but being a rock band does not make them notable, since there are millions of rock bands and we're not interested in covering them all. As for being from Houghton, Michigan, there doesn't seem to be any reason to suspect that bands from that town would, as a class, somehow be statistically different from bands from any other town.
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".
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.
For example, an article that only said "John Doe is a chemist" would technically be speediable.
Only if you assume that being a chemist is not a claim to notability.
Right. I don't consider being a chemist a claim to notability, since, again, there are millions of chemists and we (Wikipedia editors) don't generally feel they should all have Wikipedia articles merely because they are chemists.
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.
So you don't feel that all chemists should have Wikipedia articles, therefore being a chemist isn't notable. That's what your argument boils down to.
Of course, the line can be fuzzy. We don't try to have articles on all humans, so being a human is not an assertion of notability per se. On the other hand, we do try to have articles on all presidents of major countries, so being a president does make one notable. But does being a cabinet minister make one notable? How about a member of parliament? Member of a town council? Those are judgement calls, and in such cases other issues may ultimately outweigh notability.
There's *nothing but* judgement calls. That's essentially my point.
Similarly, it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia should have articles on all Nobel laureates, so being one automatically makes one notable. It's equally obvious that Wikipedia should not have articles on all students, -- probably not even on all grad students -- so being a student does not make one notable. But is a Ph.D. enough to make one notable? Some feel it is, some don't.
A typical article with no claim to notability might be something like:
"Joe Smith (b. 1989) is a student at the Whateverville high school. He plays football and listens to Red Hot Chili Peppers. He's a really great guy."
I'd say that has plenty of claims to notability, but is patently absurd.
You seem to be using curious definitions of notability and absurdity. To me there's nothing absurd about the description; such a description is quite likely to be true (and even mostly verifiable), except maybe for the subjective assertion in the end.
There is no such high school as Whateverville high school, so that's patently absurd.
As for my definition of notability, unless someone else comes up with a better one (which was one of the goals of this thread), I'd say notability = worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Since I think every high school student who plays football and listens to RHCP should be included in Wikipedia, I think they're all notable.
Now maybe you have a better definition of notable. If so, I'd love to hear it.
Julie harding came up with a reasonable one, though I disagree with it (and it would include all chemists, so it apparently isn't the one you have).
On the other hand, the description places Joe Smith in a number of categories (people born in 1989, students of Whateverville high school, football players, people who listen to RHCP, really great guys), none of which we believe Wikipedia should be a comprehensive index of.
Speak for yourself. I see no reason not to include, for instance, all students of Whateverville high school, if indeed that high school existed.
So none of them count as claims of notability. The same, also, goes for any intersections of the categories: we don't aim to have articles on all football players who listen to RHCP either.
Why not?
Of course, failing to assert notability does not mean an article *must* be deleted. But let's face it, the article I gave as an example has nothing else going for it either. As Wikipedia generally operates on the presumption that biographies of random people should _not_ be included unless there is a particular reason for it, the default for such articles, in the absence of any generally accepted reason for keeping, is to delete.
(In other fields it's different: for example, articles on animal or plant species are considered worth keeping by default, even if they make no claims of notability. One might say that species are consider notable per se, but that's perhaps not _quite_ correct either, since we don't really aim to catalog all species known to man in Wikipedia, at least not in the near future. It might be more accurate to say that, in the case of species -- and most other non-biographical topics -- the default presumption is inclusion rather than exclusion. In any case, the distinction is hairline thin, and might not even exist outside my own head. But that's pretty much how I see it.)
From my understanding of Wikipedia policies, the default presumption is *always* inclusion. It used to be a sentence directly in the policy: "When in doubt, don't delete." I haven't bothered to check whether that sentence has been deleted or not.
Anthony
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. 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.
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...
There is no such high school as Whateverville high school, so that's patently absurd.
Let's work together, eh?
As for my definition of notability, unless someone else comes up with a better one (which was one of the goals of this thread), I'd say notability = worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Since I think every high school student who plays football and listens to RHCP should be included in Wikipedia, I think they're all notable.
That's sort of ok, but leads to a circular reference ("we only include people who are notable. what's notable? people worthy of inclusion"). It would just cause us to seek another word to explain *why* someone is worthy of inclusion. "Interesting" etc.
Better to say: We include things in Wikipedia because either: a) They're inherently notable amongst their class b) Because they are part of a class small enough that it's feasible and worthwhile including all members c) Because it would offend too many people to remove them
Of course I don't think all high school students who play football are notable, and they don't meet the other two criteria either.
From my understanding of Wikipedia policies, the default presumption is *always* inclusion. It used to be a sentence directly in the policy: "When in doubt, don't delete." I haven't bothered to check whether that sentence has been deleted or not.
There have been edit wars over it.
Steve
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.
On 5/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com 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.
I agree that it's notable, but that doesn't mean it isn't quite likely that there are others who disagree.
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 :)
Sure, there's a loud group of people who feel that certain types of articles should be deleted from Wikipedia. A lot of them use the terminology "not notable" to designate those types of articles that they feel shouldn't be included.
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.
If the vast majority of random pages are candidates for speedy deletion, then the deletion mechanisms of Wikipedia are utterly broken.
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...
I'm using the term chemist to mean the same as it means in the US government job occupation database. In that database, there are listed to be 90,000 chemists in the US.
There is no such high school as Whateverville high school, so that's patently absurd.
Let's work together, eh?
Choose a stupid hypothetical, get a stupid result.
As for my definition of notability, unless someone else comes up with a better one (which was one of the goals of this thread), I'd say notability = worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Since I think every high school student who plays football and listens to RHCP should be included in Wikipedia, I think they're all notable.
That's sort of ok, but leads to a circular reference ("we only include people who are notable. what's notable? people worthy of inclusion"). It would just cause us to seek another word to explain *why* someone is worthy of inclusion. "Interesting" etc.
Well sure, I don't think the term "notable" is useful. And I don't think it should be used in a speedy deletion criterion. Because, like you say, it's circular reasoning.
Better to say: We include things in Wikipedia because either: a) They're inherently notable amongst their class b) Because they are part of a class small enough that it's feasible and worthwhile including all members c) Because it would offend too many people to remove them
You might want to say that, but I don't think it's true. If it was, then you could point to a number of members of the class that is a cutoff, and there wouldn't be significant deviations on either side. There are probably a lot more baseball players than there are haz-mat - is a haz-mat driver part of a class small enough that it's feasible to include all the members.
And then, your criteria are just as circular as my definition. What is "inherently notable amongst their class"? What makes a class "worthwhile" to talk about?
Of course I don't think all high school students who play football are notable, and they don't meet the other two criteria either.
Well, I think they are. I also think it's feasible and worthwhile to include all members, at least all members that something verifiable can be written about (and that wouldn't amount to a violation of privacy rights).
From my understanding of Wikipedia policies, the default presumption is *always* inclusion. It used to be a sentence directly in the policy: "When in doubt, don't delete." I haven't bothered to check whether that sentence has been deleted or not.
There have been edit wars over it.
Steve
G'day Anthony,
On 5/3/06, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
No, it has to *assert* the notability of its subject. When clearing up CAT:CSD I see a lot of speedy taggings where the tagger simply figured "sure, there's an assertion of notability there, but I don't think it's good enough". Wrong.
How does an article go about asserting the notability of its subject? What would be an example of an article which asserts notability but doesn't establish it?
An article saying "Joe Bloggs is a man from Golbourn" would be speedy deletable, because it doesn't assert that Joe Bloggs is in any way notable (it's also obnoxious, because it just assumes that everyone knows where Golbourn is).
"Joe Bloggs is a man from Golbourn who won the Nobel Prize in partying down!" would be speedy deletable, because it's nonsense.
"Joe Bloggs is a man from Golbourn who won the Nobel Prize in physics." would be sufficient, in my book.
"He won the nobel prize!" under the title "Joe Bloggs" would be speedy deletable because of a lack of context and a desire to see how Jimbo would react.
On 5/4/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Anthony,
On 5/3/06, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
No, it has to *assert* the notability of its subject. When clearing up CAT:CSD I see a lot of speedy taggings where the tagger simply figured "sure, there's an assertion of notability there, but I don't think it's good enough". Wrong.
How does an article go about asserting the notability of its subject? What would be an example of an article which asserts notability but doesn't establish it?
An article saying "Joe Bloggs is a man from Golbourn" would be speedy deletable, because it doesn't assert that Joe Bloggs is in any way notable (it's also obnoxious, because it just assumes that everyone knows where Golbourn is).
"Joe Bloggs is a man from Golbourn who won the Nobel Prize in partying down!" would be speedy deletable, because it's nonsense.
"Joe Bloggs is a man from Golbourn who won the Nobel Prize in physics." would be sufficient, in my book.
OK, so being from Golbourn isn't notable, but winning the Nobel Prize in physics is (at least in your book).
Any other trait, I guess I just gotta guess.
"He won the nobel prize!" under the title "Joe Bloggs" would be speedy deletable because of a lack of context and a desire to see how Jimbo would react.
Would "Joe Bloggs won the nobel prize." be speedy deleteable (assuming it was true, and not patent nonsense). If so, why wouldn't we want the otherwise deleting admin to just substitute the name for "He" and the period for exclamation point? If not, which nobel prizes are notable, and which aren't?
Anthony
G'day Anthony,
On 5/4/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
"He won the nobel prize!" under the title "Joe Bloggs" would be speedy deletable because of a lack of context and a desire to see how Jimbo would react.
Would "Joe Bloggs won the nobel prize." be speedy deleteable (assuming it was true, and not patent nonsense). If so, why wouldn't we want the otherwise deleting admin to just substitute the name for "He" and the period for exclamation point? If not, which nobel prizes are notable, and which aren't?
You'll have to ask Jimbo about that one.
Serves me right for relying on an incident hardly anyone knew about (and fewer remember) for humour ...
On 5/4/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Anthony,
On 5/4/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
"He won the nobel prize!" under the title "Joe Bloggs" would be speedy deletable because of a lack of context and a desire to see how Jimbo would react.
Would "Joe Bloggs won the nobel prize." be speedy deleteable (assuming it was true, and not patent nonsense). If so, why wouldn't we want the otherwise deleting admin to just substitute the name for "He" and the period for exclamation point? If not, which nobel prizes are notable, and which aren't?
You'll have to ask Jimbo about that one.
Serves me right for relying on an incident hardly anyone knew about (and fewer remember) for humour ...
Heh, I should have known there was something you were talking about that I hadn't heard about when you mentioned Jimbo.
Of course, the whole concept that "assertion of notability" is a meaningful standard is rather foreign to me.
Anthony
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Anthony,
On 5/4/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
"He won the nobel prize!" under the title "Joe Bloggs" would be speedy deletable because of a lack of context and a desire to see how Jimbo would react.
Would "Joe Bloggs won the nobel prize." be speedy deleteable (assuming it was true, and not patent nonsense). If so, why wouldn't we want the otherwise deleting admin to just substitute the name for "He" and the period for exclamation point? If not, which nobel prizes are notable, and which aren't?
You'll have to ask Jimbo about that one.
Serves me right for relying on an incident hardly anyone knew about (and fewer remember) for humour ...
Serves you right for being awake at 6 am! And yes, /I/ remember it.
On 04/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
How does an article go about asserting the notability of its subject?
Typically, "Bill Smith is a DJ best known for winning the British DJ of the year award in 1983".
What would be an example of an article which asserts notability but doesn't establish it?
Not citing a verifiable source which shows that Bill Smith did indeed win that award.
Steve
On 5/4/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
How does an article go about asserting the notability of its subject?
Typically, "Bill Smith is a DJ best known for winning the British DJ of the year award in 1983".
I'm just going to give up on that first question. Apparently "asserting the notablilty of a subject" means whatever the admin doing the deletion wants it to mean.
What would be an example of an article which asserts notability but doesn't establish it?
Not citing a verifiable source which shows that Bill Smith did indeed win that award.
Steve
Thanks, an actual answer to that second question of mine. One that makes sense, to boot.
Anthony
On 04/05/06, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Steve,
On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
As for "an article with no claim to notability", I actually have no idea what that phrase means.
An article has to establish the notability of its subject. If it doesn't do that, it's subject to speedy deletion.
...I recite.
No, it has to *assert* the notability of its subject. When clearing up CAT:CSD I see a lot of speedy taggings where the tagger simply figured "sure, there's an assertion of notability there, but I don't think it's good enough". Wrong.
There is, of course, the fact that most people (myself included) interpret it as "no assertion of plausible notability". "John Smith was the first man to climb Everest in a week" is an assertion of notability, and it's plausible. "John Smith was the first man to climb Olympus Mons" is an assertion of implausible notability.
And "is the world's sexiest man" would seem a pretty good definition of notability, but - strangely enough - we tend to ignore that the ten thousand speedied articles saying this are asserting notability. :-)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk