[WikiEN-l] CSD A7, hilarity ensues

[Anthony]

On 6/11/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 6/11/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Anthony, where did you get the text above?
> >
> > Which text?  "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received
> > significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the
> > subject."?  That's from [[Wikipedia:Notability]].
>
> Ah.  however, the standard at CSD is not proof of notability but an
> assertion of it.  Admins are not supposed to evaluate the article
> against [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and unilaterally decide if it meets
> it.
>
Well, obviously we don't want an article to literally say "Joe Bo is
notable."  So presumably whether or not an article asserts notability
is dependent on what it means to be notable.

For example, if you think all people killed in Iraq are notable, then
an article which says the person was killed in Iraq asserts
notability.  But if you don't think all people killed in Iraq are
notable, then you'd have no problem speedying such an article.  Does
this make sense?

> >> [re CSD:A7 text]
> > That's even worse, as "importance or significance" is even less well
> > defined than "notability".
>
> I suspect this is the result of someone disliking the word
> 'notability' and substituting 'importance or significance', and not
> actually a substantive difference.
>
Could be.

> > Isn't "importance or significance" subjective enough?  Or would "Joe
> > Bob is an important person" qualify as asserting its importance?
>
> I think we'd generally speedy that, but send to AFD 'Joe Bob is an
> important person because of x, y and z'.
>
"Joe Bob is an important person because he's the uncle of Jimmy Wales,
because he plays the saxophone really well, and because his IQ is
120"?