No subject

be getting my wires crossed here) A7 refers to several specific types
of articles which do not assert/verify notability. I don't really see
how this is so banal, or how it could ever be fixed. Unless you want
to totally eliminate notability as a valid  speedy criteria, there are
no better options. The categories link directly to helpful and
specific types of notability requirement for which there presently are
no substitutes. Judging whether something asserts notability has never
been the difficult part of determining notability in my experience,
it's whether or not the assertion is verifiably true.

On 9/29/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> This is a new thread to discuss CSD A7.
>
> The Category for Speedy Deletion A7 is a menace. It is far too open to
> misuse. It should be replaced by something with far less discretion.
>
> My question is: we need a banality threshold, but which one? We do need
> articles speedied if they are without redeeming interest. A7 is broken, and
> builds on the idea that notability (another broken idea) and its "assertion"
> can be properly judged by individuals.
>
> What is there that can be put in its place? How can we better characterise
> "run-of-the-mill" ?
>
> Charles
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>