On 09/04/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
If someone is real-world notable and we can back it up, I don't see
how
Wikipedia notability would be any different.
Because Wikipedia notability, in many people's minds, needs more than simply "backing it up." Society's idea of notable is fluid and depends
on
what you're talking about - Wikipedia's got a small but vocal number of people who feel notability is constant and defined only by who says as such.
It's why there needs to be a distinction - "not so notable" or
"borderline
notability" is a false concept that only exists in that small but vocal group. It has little in the way of a basis in reality, and is not
defined
by anything that is logical.
"Notability" has no divinely-ordained, objective definition that can be logically deduced. The definition of "notability" changes according to how much the person using the word wants an article to be deleted.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
It may be, but it shouldn't. It should be based on facts, not someone's deletion opinions. The result based on those facts may differ, though.
"Notability" isn't something that could ever be directly measurable. There are several indirect measures that are used (some of which are more likely to determine an article to be not notable). It really isn't hard to delete an article based on notability: you just have to choose the right yardstick.
Even the concept itself is very vague: different things are notable to different members of different demographic groups at different times. Things are often deleted on Wikipedia because they are not notable to a particular demographics (eg. the affluent demographics to which many Wikipedians belong).
For these reasons, "notability" is a terrible way to determine whether an article should be kept or deleted on Wikipedia. The sooner we abandon it (and start relying on harder measures such as verifiability), the better.