G'day Anthony,
On 6/11/07, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
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.
Yes. Sadly, too many admins just look at the tag. Plenty of fault to
go around.
Is an "assertion of notability" supposed to be harder or easier
to
obtain compared to outright "notability". Because it seems to me that
in order for an article to assert the notability of its subject, if
has to either: 1) be about a notable subject, or 2) contain
falsehoods.
Notability is a tricky subject. I'll give you an example: bands.
Suppose I was the lead yodeler in The Flailing Hairnets, one of the
premier bands performing music in the genre of Mexican Nasal Yodeling.
However, we had not released two albums on a major label or done enough
of the other things required by [[WP:MUSIC]].
AfD may well decide that we are significant enough in our genre to be
worth an article, despite the fact that we fail [[WP:MUSIC]]. Then
again, they may not. Are we notable? Regardless of what AfD decides,
that's not something that can be dealt with by a single admin and a
single clueless RC patroller spending 30 seconds apiece skimming the
article and reaching for a button on VandalNukerPlus or whatever the
latest semi-auto toy is called.
There's one very easy way to show you're notable: source. If there's
a
ton of source material out there about you and your yodeling, we should
have an article on you. If there's not, we shouldn't-even if you -have-
released two major-label albums, had a number-one hit, whatever the case
may be.