[WikiEN-l] Tim Noah addresses the notion of notability in another Slate article

[Jeff Raymond]

William Pietri wrote:

> So wouldn't every new subject-specific guideline be inevitably seen by
> one-size-fits-all types as another lowering of the standard, a breach
> through which ten thousand non-notable items will flow?

Yes.  The problem, of course, is that those pushing for the
one-size-fits-all are generally the deletionist types, and furthermore see
no value in saying that something is "notable" without fitting that
criteria.

I mean, I don't want to use strong offensive language to describe the
mentality, but it's all that comes across.  The list I gave earlier this
week is an excellent example of where a one-size-fits-all mentality fails
in terms of filmmaking:

1) The "one-size-fits-all" mentality says that a film is only "notable" if
numerous items have "noted" it specifically as the subject of its pieces.

2) The "subject specific" mentality says that not ALL films are inherently
notable, but certain aspects of a film, based on various possibilities
including attention, who's making it, if it wins awards, distribution,
etc, make a film "notable."

My two personal examples involve b-movie style exploitation films, "Mom
and Dad" and "She Shoulda Said No."  Most people in group #1 agree that
both of these films are "notable," based on their importance to the genre
and the attention they recieved, none of it reaching specific "is the
subject" standard.  Generally speaking, every person in group #2 will
agree that both films are "notable" due to awards, distribution,
associations, etc.

Now, what's the problem here?  Group one is totally willing to make an
exception for something it "knows" is "notable" there, but will not make
that exception for something of similar "notability" in other areas, such
as a business or a person or a musician, often meaning that otherwise
useful "notable" information fails to get included.  Group two knows that
a line in the sand is pretty much the best way to keep the crap out while
including necessary (and perhaps important) information.  They also know
that some marginal information ''may'' get in, but it's a small price to
pay for the breadth of information it provides.

Does group two's approach always work?  Well, no - see our AfDs/DRVs on
[[Emmalina]] or [[Gregory Kohs]] for more recent examples (both of which,
BTW, meet BOTH standards).  But, generally speaking, it HAS worked, and
has worked fine until group one decided that their way was best and
started pushing it more.  Not that anything was necessarily broken, but
hey.

So now, a "notability" situation that was workable, but tenuous and
recieved a minority of complaints, is being overburdened by an
underthought, unrepresentative entity that's causing more problems than
it's worth - we're the laughingstock of internet communities, we get
criticised in the mainstream for our inconsistencies, and few who aren't
involved truly understand it anyway (and, judging by many AfD/DRV
comments, there's a significant chunk of people who ARE involved who truly
understand it).

With the exception of people, in which there's a historical pool of tens
of billions, at worst we end up with a working finite pool of possible
articles, of which a very small percentage ever meet the standard to
become an article, and that's even if anyone bothers to make them to begin
with (for instance, unless I decide to heavily contribute again, I can
provide a list of 100 articles that are unlikely to be made before the end
of 2007.  No one - literally - has shown any interest in the specific
areas in the year plus I've been working on them, and Wikipedia's star
can't get much higher).  The worries that you state - "ten thousand
non-notable items will flow" - is completely unfounded, unlikely, and
possibly impossible.  Unless, of course, someone believes that an
unreviewed film mentioned in a couple books and two newspaper articles,
never as "the subject", is "non-notable."  In that case, perhaps one has
to wonder if they have the best interests of the project at heart.

-Jeff