[Wikipedia-l] Non-notability "abuse" - why notability is important

[David Monniaux]

Ian Tresman wrote:
> Exactly. Significancy is subjective just as notability. The sum of 
> human knowledge includes items that are neither significant nor notable.
>
> As Jimbo says, the criteria for inclusion is verifiability (excluding 
> original research).
>   
I see the notability criterion as very important in order to avoid 
overloading volunteers (OTRS, admins, and other users) with 
controversies about really unimportant people, companies etc.

I don't mind having articles on a gazillion Pokemons, because Pokemons 
don't threaten us with lawsuits. But gazillion articles on 
not-so-well-known individuals (artists, journalists, etc.) or companies 
create us difficulties. Basically, these articles are of interest only 
to the subject (and his friends and family) and to his enemies, creating 
intense battles over petty topics.

It is insane, for instance, that we should expand more valuable 
resources on battling libel problems on, say, the article about a minor 
pro wrestler, than we expand on battling problems on the Islam article.

Yes, contrary to paper encyclopedias, space is not counted. However, 
volunteer time is limited, and we should not waste it.