[WikiEN-l] Re: Notability meta-guidelines

[Alphax (Wikipedia email)]

Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>The only way I can see to interpret 1) is to make "notable"
>>>mean something like "well known".
>>
>>Yes, it was a mistake on my part.
>>
>>
>>>And frankly, the rule doesn't make sense to me.  Providing
>>>someone with information on something when they request it
>>>isn't advertising.
>>>Advertising is when you provide someone with information
>>>other than what they requested.
>>>
>>>IOW, if someone does a search for "Bob's Garage Band" and
>>>they get information on it, how is that advertising?
>>
>>I'm not 100% sure of the logic either, but articles get turfed for being
>>"vanity" all the time. Even, as we have seen recently, when they are
>>written by people unknown to the subject.
>>
>>Actually now that I think about it, maybe a subject *does* get false
>>notability from being on Wikipedia. If I searched for Bob's garage band
>>and found nothing but a crufty geocities website, that would be one
>>thing. If I found a fully-fledged Wikipedia article, I would think
>>something completely different about them. I would think they were more
>>notable than they really were.
>>
>>Steve
> 
> 
> What if the Wikipedia article said that they weren't notable?
> 
> What exactly does notable mean, anyway?
> 

Has some feature that distinguishes the subject from all members of the
same set in some non-trivial manner.

-- 
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060121/10765593/attachment.pgp