[Wikipedia-l] Non-notability "abuse"

[Florence Devouard]

Ian Tresman 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


Actually, a "pensée" is very notable and very verifiable by my standards...

ant