On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
I just took a look at that list myself. All the items in it look like they deserve deletion from all except a *very* extreme inclusionist viewpoint.
How so?
Because nobody's heard of them. I agree that notability as it is is nonsense, but any view except the very extreme inclusionist is at least going to allow for deletion of articles about individual works that nobody's heard of (except the person creating the article and his friends).
I also find your main argument silly:
"Like all so-called "policies" on Wikipedia, "Notability" is absolutely non-binding. We're expected to exercise our own judgment based on the given situation, not defer to a bunch of arbitrary and non-binding "rules" and "policies"."
First of all, notability is a guideline, not a policy. By ragging on policies, you're overextending the argument.
More importantly, we should follow policies and guidelines most of the time. If you're not following them, you need a good reason--and a good reason for that specific case. You haven't articulated any reason why you think these particular AFDs are ill-served by notability. All your reasons are generic ones merely stating that we shouldn't ever have to care about notability at all.
(Incidentally, I'll retract my earlier remark a bit. Jumpstart sounds like it could be legitimately okay too, since it's likely most Wikipedia editors wouldn't have heard of it merely because of geography. Moslanka, in Russia, may be another one. There seems to be a common theme here of something foreign being called non-notable because nobody in America has heard of it.)