Since traditional encyclopedias have articles on hotels and actresses, why can't Wikipedia?
If an article on an American actress as notable as Chen Liping was nominated for deletion, the nominator would probably be admonished - or even blocked - for disruption. That the American Wikipedian who nominated the article for deletion (or speedy deleted) has not heard of it does not mean it is notable. Notability does not depend on the country the actress/blogger/hotel is from, but on whether there is significant coverage of the actress/blogger in reliable sources.
Instead of fighting to get an article deleted on the grounds of "non-notability", why not go and write some GAs?
P.S. Ian and I are discussing different issues. Ian's complaint is that controversial articles are deleted on the grounds of "non-notability", while I am addressing the problem of articles on Singaporean topics being deleted on the grounds of "non-notability". Perhaps we should create another thread about systemic bias and notability? Sorry for hijacking your thread, Ian.
-- Written with passion, J.L.W.S. The Special One
2007/9/20, Ian Tresman <ian2@knowledge.co.uk >:
It hardly requires any sort of radical "Wikipedia isn't paper" justification to include hotels and actresses in an encyclopedia. Even the most staid, old-fashioned encyclopedias of eras past, like Britannica's famous 1911 edition, included both. What exactly is the objection here?
Different people have their own ideas as to what is "encyclopedic", and what is "notable".
So if they want to exclude something, they claim it is "unencyclopedic" or not notable. Since neither of these are objective, there's no rational argument for or against.
So some of us spend more time in "discussions" over notability of policy, than on time adding or improving articles.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l