Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 1/18/06, Steve Bennett stevage@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.