[Wikipedia-l] Max Weismann...does he deserve an article?

[Manning Bartlett]

On the talk page for Max Weismann maveric wrote the following...

And what has this person done to warrent an encyclopedia article? There are A 
LOT of presidents and directors of entities and a lot more editors -- why is 
this one so special? --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]

Now I'm not criticising Dan at all here, simply exploring the issues that this 
comment raises.

It is a question that strikes at the very heart of the Wikipedia project... who 
decides what deserves to be here and what doesn't? The article in question does 
not contravene any of the Wikipedia rules, it does not advertise, it's not 
offensive... it's just boring and trivial, and probably of no interest to 
anyone except his close friends. 

But IMHO, it deserves to be here. Mainly because choosing to get rid of it 
solely on its lack of "significance" (as opposed to its violation of 'pedia 
rules) would severely damage the project.

Unfortunately "boring and trivial" is what I would say about a lot of Wikipedia 
content. So who decides? I think the ultimate standard is "If someone feels 
that an article needs to be written, then it deserves to be here". I know we 
have an entire series of articles on central mexican hip-hop bands, including 
ones without recording contracts. They stayed for the very reason that someone 
bothered to write about them. 

To extend our authority into the realm of "deserves to be here or not" is to 
open ourselves to a cabalism and disenchantment by the community. For example, 
if I had "MY" way, all of the articles on all of the sub-characters of the 
Simpsons would go, you'll never convince me they have any merit at all. Ditto 
for the articles on the minor characters from Star Wars. However, I personally 
regard the individual musicians who played with Frank Zappa on his various 
tours to be far more interesting, and one day I might write about them. I 
suspect some of you would disagree... etc etc etc.

So who will decide which of these articles "deserve to be here" ? To do so 
means answering the question: "Are the Simpsons more important than Frank 
Zappa?" How can you answer that question from a NPOV? 

I am aware we have standards for articles such as advertising content, these 
are fairly black and white. But discriminating on "significance" is much more 
dangerous.

What criteria will be applied? 
How do you (and who will) create the criteria? 
How do you apply them without bias? 
Is the winner of the Uzbekistani Fish-slapping championship "trivial"? Says who?

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Damn I can't wait to get out of India :) I hope they don't nuke Bombay as my 
flight connection is through there, and it's so hard to change your flight to a 
different city.

Cheers
Manning