[WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields

[David Gerard]

On 12/05/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:

> 4. From NOT, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. If
> this only meant we don't accept unverifiable information, it would be
> redundant to V. If it only meant we don't accept original research,
> redundant to NOR. If it only meant we don't allow insertion of bias, it
> would be redundant to NPOV. If it only meant that we don't accept
> dicdefs, personal webpages, etc., it would be redundant to the rest of
> NOT. Since it is indeed there, it indicates we intend to discriminate
> beyond those principles.


That's the arse-backwards bit: NOT implies we *can*, not that we *have
to*, and it's not a fundamental the way the other three are.


> 5. From WP:CONSENSUS, it's pretty evident, by the fact that we have been
> deleting articles on the grounds of lack of notability for quite some
> time, there is consensus to do so. (Of course, consensus can change, but
> more such articles will be deleted today, and more after that tomorrow.)


The strong objections remain, however, so this one is also questionable.


> To sum up: We need independent and reliable sources on a subject so that
> information is -verified- and -neutral-, and so that we need not use
> -original research- to interpret that ourselves. We're -not- an
> indiscriminate collection information, and we've generally demonstrated
> -consensus- to delete articles which do not meet these criteria.


First sentence good, second sentence bad. What's the result of leaving
the second sentence off?


- d.