Keith Old writes:
"After all, one of the reasons for Speedy Deletion is that an article has not established notability of the subject."
No. Lots of our articles don't *establish* notability, and they're not speediable at all. The A7 CSD is for articles that don't *assert* notability. If an article contains a (reasonably credible) claim of notability, that is enough to take it out of the category. The criterion is somewhat elastic, but there is apparently some ongoing work to tighten it, by providing illustrative examples or otherwise. So if you write an article "Bobby Moore, a player for West Ham, was the captain of the 1966 World Cup winning England football team", it stop far short of establishing notability (no references) but it does undeniably *assert* notability.
Tony, any chance you could stop editing the subject when replying? This debate is fragmented enough already.
Dan
On 15/09/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
Tony, any chance you could stop editing the subject when replying? This debate is fragmented enough already.
Gah, I should add that it's *fragmented for Gmail users*, in that mails with the same subject line get put in lovely "conversations" (just like threads in a forum), and if you edit the subject it gets broken.
Dan
Dan Grey wrote:
Tony, any chance you could stop editing the subject when replying? This debate is fragmented enough already.
There is nothing wrong with editing the subject at all, just make sure that you use a mailer that properly sets the References header. I don't get why so many don't. It is vital for keeping threads together.
Tony,
Fair point in that I used the words wrongly
However, I feel that my words have been taken out of context. I was responding to a admin who was claiming that the word notable should not be used in AfD discussions and he would speedy keep any votes in which the word was used.
My point was, and remains, that notability is a central concept in AfD discussions as much as verifiability. If a user wishes to assert that the article is worthy of an A7 speedy delete on the grounds that it isn't notable, it should be open for him or her to do so.
I feel that my words have been taken out of context in this thread.
On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Keith Old writes:
"After all, one of the reasons for Speedy Deletion is that an article has not established notability of the subject."
No. Lots of our articles don't *establish* notability, and they're not speediable at all. The A7 CSD is for articles that don't *assert* notability. If an article contains a (reasonably credible) claim of notability, that is enough to take it out of the category. The criterion is somewhat elastic, but there is apparently some ongoing work to tighten it, by providing illustrative examples or otherwise. So if you write an article "Bobby Moore, a player for West Ham, was the captain of the 1966 World Cup winning England football team", it stop far short of establishing notability (no references) but it does undeniably *assert* notability.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/15/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Tony,
Fair point in that I used the words wrongly
However, I feel that my words have been taken out of context. I was responding to a admin who was claiming that the word notable should not be used in AfD discussions and he would speedy keep any votes in which the word was used.
My point was, and remains, that notability is a central concept in AfD discussions as much as verifiability.
No. With the exception of biographical articles, attempts to incorporate notability into the deletion policy have repeatedly failed. Verifiability is rightly central to all wikipedia editing policy. Notability is and will likely remain an ill-defined concept, only grudgingly accepted, if that.
There is a fairly large minority of Wikipedians who follow a precept articulated once by Jimbo Wales: that when people use the word notability, what they're really getting at is verifiability. An obscure individual about whom nothing can be ascertained except what he himself, or his mother, wrote into a Wikipedia article, can be described as non-notable in that sense.
That is not a widely accepted meaning of the word--far from it--but I think it's the only one that even comes close to a useful definition. It would only gain anything like wide acceptance if we could agree on a method of quantifying the verifiable information available, and I fear that would be far too ambitious a project for this little encyclopedia.
If a user wishes to assert that the
article is worthy of an A7 speedy delete on the grounds that it isn't notable, it should be open for him or her to do so.
Absolutely not. The A7 speedy says nothing about whether an article is notable, only whether it contains an assertion of notability. This is, unless that CSD is changed, non-negotiable.
Oops, I did it again. What I meant to say is that if a user wishes to vote for a speedy delete on the grounds that an article does not assert notability it should open for him or her to do so.
As to the more important issue that you raised, notability is in my view a central point as AfD has evolved. For example, I could write an article on the street where I live. It is in street directories and the ACT Department of Urban Services has a directory of street names saying how each street in Canberra got its name. There is verifiable information as to when it was built I could even write that I lived there because I am in the electoral roll which is another source of verifiable information.
The point is that my street is probably not of any interest to anyone living outside the suburb of Hughes in the ACT, Australia and there shouldn't be an article on it in Wikipedia. Thus notability has evolved to be a key issue as to whether or not articles are worthy of retention.
On 9/16/05, f crdfa f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/15/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Tony,
Fair point in that I used the words wrongly
However, I feel that my words have been taken out of context. I was responding to a admin who was claiming that the word notable should not
be
used in AfD discussions and he would speedy keep any votes in which the word was used.
My point was, and remains, that notability is a central concept in AfD discussions as much as verifiability.
No. With the exception of biographical articles, attempts to incorporate notability into the deletion policy have repeatedly failed. Verifiability is rightly central to all wikipedia editing policy. Notability is and will likely remain an ill-defined concept, only grudgingly accepted, if that.
There is a fairly large minority of Wikipedians who follow a precept articulated once by Jimbo Wales: that when people use the word notability, what they're really getting at is verifiability. An obscure individual about whom nothing can be ascertained except what he himself, or his mother, wrote into a Wikipedia article, can be described as non-notable in that sense.
That is not a widely accepted meaning of the word--far from it--but I think it's the only one that even comes close to a useful definition. It would only gain anything like wide acceptance if we could agree on a method of quantifying the verifiable information available, and I fear that would be far too ambitious a project for this little encyclopedia.
If a user wishes to assert that the
article is worthy of an A7 speedy delete on the grounds that it isn't notable, it should be open for him or her to do so.
Absolutely not. The A7 speedy says nothing about whether an article is notable, only whether it contains an assertion of notability. This is, unless that CSD is changed, non-negotiable. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/15/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that my street is probably not of any interest to anyone living outside the suburb of Hughes in the ACT, Australia and there shouldn't be an article on it in Wikipedia. Thus notability has evolved to be a key issue as to whether or not articles are worthy of retention.
probably because speedy covers so much now (although I still want to expand it to cover obvious copyvios)
Keith Old wrote:
Oops, I did it again. What I meant to say is that if a user wishes to vote for a speedy delete on the grounds that an article does not assert notability it should open for him or her to do so.
As to the more important issue that you raised, notability is in my view a central point as AfD has evolved. For example, I could write an article on the street where I live. It is in street directories and the ACT Department of Urban Services has a directory of street names saying how each street in Canberra got its name. There is verifiable information as to when it was built I could even write that I lived there because I am in the electoral roll which is another source of verifiable information.
The point is that my street is probably not of any interest to anyone living outside the suburb of Hughes in the ACT, Australia and there shouldn't be an article on it in Wikipedia. Thus notability has evolved to be a key issue as to whether or not articles are worthy of retention.
Feel free to add this information to [[Hughes, Australian Capital Territory]].