[WikiEN-l] The Economist on "notability"

[Kurt Maxwell Weber]

On Monday 10 March 2008 14:54, Ian Woollard wrote:
> I consider myself an inclusionist, but I defend deletionism if done in
> the spirit and letter of the rules.

What rules?  There are no rules on Wikipedia...we are only bound by our 
obligation to further the aims of the encyclopedia.

Removing factual, verifiable information works AGAINST the aims of the 
encyclopedia.

>
> But now you mention it, isn't this about inanity anyway? If somebody
> creates an inane article do we let it stand?

What makes an article "inane"?  Being about something you're not interested 
in?

>
> If I create an article about 'People scratching themselves behind
> their ears' and the notability guideline is removed, would this
> article be allowed to stand or not??

It should be allowed to stay, "notability guideline" or no, since "notability" 
is meaningless and unnecessary in the first place.  We're not bound by it 
PERIOD.

> And if it stayed, what sort of 
> thing would be in it?

Information about people scratching themselves behind their ears, obviously.

-- 
Kurt Weber
<kmw at armory.com>