On 5/5/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Surely the speedy deletion criterion doesn't require that notability be summed up in the first sentence. Or is that what "asserting notability" means?
I can't speak for the CsD, but summing up notability in the first sense is good practice stylistically.
Well, my question was in terms of the CsD, and we don't require articles to be perfect in order to avoid speedy deletion.
Of course, notability is a vague concept. Mentioning that someone was a king makes them notable without any further information.
Unless you're King George Francis Cruickshank (or is he Emperor?). (And yes, that's a joke, sort of.)
Anyway, yeah, vague concept. In other words, it means anything the admins want it to mean. That's what I've gotten from all the other contributors to this discussion also.
I wonder how we deal with notability for mathematical formulas though...do we accept "Smith's rule" if it was invented for one published paper and never referred to since?
States. If it's not notable, you can't sum it up.
...
These are all easily summed up, so they are all notable?
You know that's not a logical restatement.
Sure it is, it's the contrapositive.
http://regentsprep.org/regents/math/relcond/Lcontrap.htm
I'm starting to think that "notability" is even more this way. It means something radically different to different people, to the point where the ability to delete due to non-assertion of notability is equivalent to the ability to delete for any reason whatsoever.
Notability is very poorly defined at the moment. And there are certainly biases present in our interpretation of it - for example, I doubt a journalist for a major paper in a minor city in an little-known country would stand much of a chance. If the country was the US, the article would stand a better chance of surviving.
But all of this is to say - fix the problem of lack of notability definition, don't just complain about it. :)
Steve
I have no ability to fix the problem of lack of notability definition. My definition is similar to that of Steve Block. Notability is, as far as I'm concerned, equivalent to verifiability (which is a much more tightly defined concept). But, short of talking about it (complaining, as you call it), there's nothing I can do to have others adopt this same definition. All I can do is point out the problems and hope someone more persuasive realizes the ludicrousness of the current situation.
Anthony