Charles Matthews wrote:
Pete/Pcb21 wrote
[*] E.g. esoteric topics about individual
characters in sub-plots of
Lord of the Rings are kept, whereas as articles about million dollar
turnover manufacturing busineses are deleted, reflecting the (painting
with a broad brush) slant towards the "nerdy student/lefty" make-up of
the Wikipedia population.
Wikipedia will reflect its editors' interests, no question. I don't really
accept that analysis, though. A million-dollar turnover manufacturing
business is still family-sized, actually. What is more, a million dollars
in one bank account looks much like a million dollars in another. It is the
price of a very ordinary house in London, for example.
Charles
Sorry yes I guess $1m was sufficiently low to muddy the waters
unnecessarily. But I think I am making a valid point.
Trying another example:
Pop stars and CEOs of large companies are both fine topics for an
encyclopedia with a wide scope such as ours.
Yes, fine, pop stars will always have greater coverage on WP because it
is a reflection of its editors' interests. I can certainly live with
that. However our policies and procedures must work so that when someone
odd does come along and write about a CEO their article isn't strangled
to death at VfD by people writing "not important , not notable" when
they mean "not important, not notable _to me_".
If notability were to be defined somehow without reference to POVs, then
it would be more acceptable.
FWIW, a lot of the stuff that is ultimately deleted as "non-notable"
actually fails "no original research" or "no nonsense", anyway.
Pete