[WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty

[David Goodman]

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG


On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
> > You are paraphrasing from [[Wikipedia:Notability]]. However, as is
> > common enough in this (endless, unresolved) discussions, you are not
> > doing so accurately enough. Firstly, [[Wikipedia:Notability]] is only a
> > guideline, not an official policy for anything.
>
> In practice, guidelines end up having the same effect as policies: anyone
> who can quote them in a dispute that is anywhere near close always wins.
> Policies don't appreciably differ from guidelines in this respect.
>
> > Secondly, you are
> > paraphrasing from the detailed explanation of the first section, but
> > missing the essential (really) point. Which is that "If a topic has
> > received significant coverage in reliable sources  that are independent
> > of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a
> > stand-alone article" is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one.
>
> In the very example I'm bringing up, the notability guidelines *were*
> interpreted as a necessary condition.  Since the article failed to satisfy
> them, it was deleted for lack of notability.
>
> And I'd wager that notability is pretty much always used this way.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

If you look at enough AfDs, you can find every possible interpretation and
misinterpretation. A great many articles have been kept with less than full
formal sourcing by the GNG guideline, and a great many have been deleted
even though they had it. Such deletion is usually done under the provisions
of WP:NOT, which rules out a great many types of articles.  Although WP:NOT
is policy, there are very few agreed guideline for interpreting any part of
it, so the actual decision sometimes seem to come out only a little better
than random.  Other decisions are made on the technicalities of what should
count as a reliable source for the purpose--and again, there is not very
great consistency. The present rules at Wikipedia are so many and
contradictory that it is possible to construct an argument with them to
 justify  almost any decision--even without using IAR.