J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
So, Andre, in your opinion, the question should be: "Where do we draw the line?"
That's why we need notability criteria that are objective, not subjective.
You're asking for the impossible. "Notable", "significant" and "reliable" can only find agreement at either extreme of the scale, and they are not identical from subject to subject. There's a big fuzzy middle where we need to begin by assuming that the person posting the information is acting in good faith, and often approaching the content from a different perspecive. This won't save all the questioned articles, but it may bring peace. perhaps we should begin treating simple "nn" deletion requests as a breach of good faith.
Ec
2007/9/20, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
Whether I agree with that depends on your definition of 'significant' (and 'reliable' as well). Basically, it's just shifting the discussion from relevancy to something that is almost as badly defined. Just like there is a level between "can be seen in one scene of a small movie" and "won an Oscar for best actress" where an actress becomes notable enough, there is a level between "got her name mentioned in two different articles in the Smalltown Weekly" and "had a biography about her published by a mainstream publisher" where her coverage gets 'significant'.
What I see as a major problem in this point is that people tend to have widely diverging opinions on where to draw the line, which means that there are quite a number people who for any issue that actually comes under discussion, they will have the same opinion. Thus, the outcome would often more depend on who happen to be the people involved in the debate than the actual pros and cons of the specific subject. How to resolve this I do not know, though, since any attempt at objective criteria would need so many exceptions that it would soon lead us back to the current situation.