[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia notability (was "Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies")

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

On 4/10/07, Brian Salter-Duke <b_duke at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 04:23:36PM -0700, Seraphim Blade wrote:
> > Well, it was pretty overwhelmingly rejected. (Yes, yes, voting bad,
> > etc., etc., but it still -can- be a useful metric.) Hell, I love
> > changing the -name- (I think notability is a pretty poor and confusing
> > thing to call our inclusion criteria), and I still couldn't bring
> > myself to support it. Basically, the question we must ask ourselves is
> > this:
> >
> > "From the independent sources available, could a comprehensive,
> > high-quality (GA/FA) article be written on this subject someday?"
> >
> > If yes, we keep. If no, we merge or delete, depending whether there's
> > any verifiable information at all and whether an appropriate place to
> > merge exists. Far easier than 4000 convoluted "notability" guidelines
> > (there's a separate one for porn stars for godsakes!), and much more
> > in line with writing an encyclopedia. (As an aside, this also -would-
> > eliminate those borderline bios-"15 minutes of fame (or shame)"
> > sourcing wouldn't allow a comprehensive article, so it'd fail that
> > anyway.
>
> This view is just one view among Wikipedians. There are other views. My
> own view is that we need to ask first - Do we want an article on topic
> X? If we answer "Yes", then we then use your criteria to determine
> whether we can write it. If your criteria fails, we do not write it. But
> we still do not write it if your criteria would pass after we answered
> "No" to my question. My question is what notability is all about. I
> would also argue that not all articles that would fail GA/FA
> (particularly under the present guidelines and practices) should be
> deleted or merged. For example, there are lots of things that should
> remain a stub, but then we have debated this on WP and we do not agree.
>
> You appear to me to keep asserting things as self-evidently true, when
> they are just your opinion.
>
> Bduke


I've written an article about the youngest kid to cross the Atlantic. It's
by no means comprehensive or near GA/FA status, but the fact he did cross
the Atlantic and was able to find enough sources to assert this together
with some personal information and some info about awards means I was able
to write a reasonable stub. George Merryweather is another good example.
He's a notable scientist, but I couldn't find sources about him, thus making
me unable to write an article.

I believe an article should be written if someone could write about a
paragraph of encyclopedic information and it wouldn't hurt to apply WP:FICT
to non-fictional things too. It's okay to write stubs, it's better to merge
them into context if we can - unless the subject of the article is falls
under the guideline that says it's notable enough for it's own entry. It
keeps information just reorganizes it. I still wonder why so many people
believe game show contestant articles should be deleted when they don't even
address the option to merge them.

Mgm