=>From: David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> => =>"Notability" STILL isn't a deletion criterion.
There are a number of policies which make notability a deletion criterion, even if they don't use the word "notability". It's certainly used as a criterion often enough; it may be the single most popular reason given for deletion.
Jay.
LOL! When is a spade not a "spade"?
Answer: When it's an "earth-removal device".
Okay, class, we can put aside the obligatory joke and get to the heart of the lecture.
I think our policies should be consistent. Otherwise we'll be duplicating that sorry historical episode in which one person was acquitted of bribery, while the guy he bribed was convicted for receiving the very same bribe.
Too complex? Okay, let's try again.
If the person is not notable enough to have his own article, and we VOTE to delete that article on those grounds, then how can we say that it's crucial to Wikipedia's editorial independence to mention a "fact" about him in another article? Especially when it's merely the FACT that someone has called him a nasty name?
Can I mention in an article that Wikipedian Joey Fastwoney ducked out of paying his share of the check at the First Boston Meetup? (By the way, this really did happen, you can ask Danny. I just haven't decided whether to "out" the poor slob. The conclusion of this debate will determine whether I do or don't!)
And is it relevant that I don't really like Joey that much, for other unrelated reasons? That is, must we consider my vengeful motivation, my desire to embarass him about X because I'm really mad at him for Y?
Anyway, I've just started to dip into the A.U.K. newsgroup, and some of the things it mentions are even worse than "kook of the millenium". Just try clicking on this reference, if you dare. It's pretty gross, i.e., it's not very pretty.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/browse_thread/threa d/41f8a13468d342a5/fcc6e23e6968dd04?q=wollman+++group:alt.usenet.kooks&r num=6&hl=en#fcc6e23e6968dd04
I just searched for Wollman on Google groups, and this was one of the first 10 hits. It makes "the pot calling the kettle black" seem tame indeed.
Well, obviously there's a lot of anger and hostility and outrage being expressed here. Should we really write about all the details? How about summarizing what people on alt.flame say about each other? How is that encyclopedic?
With all the time that's been wasted discussing this issue, a few of us could have researched and written a fairly good article about AUK by now.
For one thing, there's no point in mentioning that a certain person has been "named kook of the millenium" unless we know WHY they chose to call him that. And if there's any controversy, we ought to describe the major sides fairly. (Hey, anyone around here remember NPOV?)
Otherwise, we just spread the anger around. It has even begun to infect level-headed, even-tempered old Uncle Ed.
*sigh*
Now, let's forget all this nonsense and get back to work.
Ed Poor