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.