[Wikipedia-l] Non-notability "abuse"

[Vee]

On 16/09/2007, Ian Tresman <ian2 at knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I believe that the idea of "notability" is being
> abused to remove controversial articles: it is
> impossible to prove that a subject is notable to
> you, and you can ignore whether it may be notable to someone else.
>
> Jimmy is quoted as saying that the criteria for
> inclusion is verifiability, which is why we have
> the following, many of which are not notable in themselves:
>
> * A thousand articles on each of the top 1000 asteroids
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asteroids_%281-1000%29
>
> * Every single episode of the Simpsons, and many other less notable TV
> shows.
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Simpsons_episodes
>
> * Articles on different shades of blue
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_blue
>
>
> Examples of abuse?
>
> * We have articles on hundreds of student newspapers
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_student_newspapers
>
>    But one in particular is singled out for
> removal on grounds of notability, presumable
> because of its controversial associations:
>
>    Pensée, a short-lived student newspaper from the 1970s.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9e_%28Immanuel_Velikovsky_Reconsidered%29
>
>
> * We have articles on some of the most bizarre,
> unproven, and pseudoscientific theories, eg. Time
> Cube, Eloptic energy, and Welteislehre.
>
>    But the article on the "Electric universe
> (concept)" was removed also on the grounds of notability (and other
> reasons)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electric_universe_%28concept%29
>    Yet the concept is readily verifiable (my
> comments were removed from the AfD, and placed n the discussion page).
>
>
> *We have articles on all manner of people, from cranks to presidents.
>
>    But the article on "Ralph Juergens" was
> removed on the grounds of his non-notability.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ralph_Juergens
>    However, he is notable in the "Velikovsky
> affair", has written articles, etc.
>
>
> By point is not to specifically argue for the
> inclusion of these articles, but that to suggest,
> for example, that "Pensée" is less notable than
> asteroid #812, shows that notability is a
> subjective criteria influenced by popularity, and is being abused as such.
>
> Wikipedia is supposed to be the "sum of all human
> knowledge", described from a neutral point of
> view, whose criteria for inclusion is
> verifiability. Minority views can receive
> (detailed) attention on pages specifically devoted to them.
>
> The examples I gave are all well-noted
> (verifiable). I agree that you might not
> necessarily find them notable (popular), but is
> that a reason to exclude them from readers who
> are unable to judge for themselves?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian Tresman
> www.plasma-universe.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

Never take anyone who starts going on about 'notability' seriously. Really..
people like that take the project far too seriously ("But we're an
encyclopedia!", as if that means anything at all). There is 0 point in
deleting verifiable, useful content that someone might expect Wikipedia to
have an article on (say, if they heard it mentioned in a conversation or
similar). And now there will be floods of, "Should be include phone
directory listings too then?" but it's hardly as if anyone would expect to
find that on Wikipedia...