[WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty

[Charles Matthews]

David Goodman wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>     
>
> 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.
>   
Many of the inconsistencies exist only in the eye of the species known 
as the Lesser Horned Wikilawyer - they illustrate the proved that "the 
Devil can cite Scripture". The phenomenon under discussion belongs 
really to the Illogical Positivist: the "notability guidelines" are a 
vast case analysis, and the General Notability Guideline is the default 
case, meant to catch the situations where no other guideline applies. As 
we have been saying, it is phrased as a sufficient condition: if it is 
not also a necessary condition, what happens? Well, the case analysis 
might not be complete: we might (gasp) have to use our own brains.

Must it be complete? Only if you believe there is a hypostatised concept 
"notability" that really must be applicable in all cases. I think what 
is being said above is that there are many of those Illogical 
Positivists around, and they argue somewhat in the way I'm saying. Now 
that wouldn't surprise me at all, as a statement. People often enough do 
use any argument from quasi-policy in what is a rhetorical rather than a 
logical way.

Charles