--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Geoff Burling (geoff@agora.rdrop.com) [050519 09:58]:
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Notability is not really definable. Jimbo has
even suggested that it's a
proxy for verifiability.
Last time I saw the word used on VfD, context
suggested that it was the
equivalent of "another article about a teenager
whose most important
achievement so far is not dropping out of high
school, which was posted
by her/his friend or relative."
Far too often I see it used to mean "it must not be important because I've never heard of it."
(Not that I'm questioning in any way that almost everything that hits VFD needs to be killed with a very big axe.)
Far too often I see this straw man argument used to villify people with good intentions. I've seen far too many times, "Keep it, it must be notable, I've heard of it." Isn't that just the other side of the same coin? Please refrain from making personal attacks on the motives of people who make VfD nominations.
RickK
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Rick (giantsrick13@yahoo.com) [050520 07:46]:
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Far too often I see it used to mean "it must not be important because I've never heard of it."
Far too often I see this straw man argument used to villify people with good intentions. I've seen far too many times, "Keep it, it must be notable, I've heard of it." Isn't that just the other side of the same coin?
Only insofar as notability is itself a deletion reason per policy, which it isn't. (Things relating to it certainly are.)
Please refrain from making personal attacks on the motives of people who make VfD nominations.
I'm talking about actual nominations made out of sheer ignorance, not a hypothetical straw man.
- d.