[WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

Mon Oct 3 18:04:58 UTC 2005

On 10/3/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
> >On 10/3/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>My point is that far too often, it's not "someone else" doing the
> >>writing. Hence the use of the word vanity.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >If this is true in general of non-notability deletion listings of articles
> >about comics, bands, schools and whatnot, it's news to me. Are you
> >absolutely *sure* that non-notability deletions on Wikipedia are usually
> >simply because the person writing the article is not a third party but is
> >someone associated with their production, operation or distribution? Because
> >that's what you seem to be saying.
> >
> >
> >
> Even if there was a notability requirement there'd still be a lot of
> this arguing going on. I don't get involved in VfDs often, usually only
> when an article I've got watchlisted gets nominated, but one I'm
> currently arguing is a good counterexample; the article about the guy in
> the US National Guard who changed his name to Optimus Prime. The only
> reason that's been put forward for deleting his article is that he isn't
> notable aside from his unusual name. Well, why can't having an unusual
> name be notable? I certainly consider it notable enough to have had the
> thing watchlisted for over a year now.
>
> Anyway, I actually think that the current policy is a great approach, if
> people would just pay attention to what was already there. In my poking
> around with the policies in arguing this case I noticed that not only is
> "non-notability" not a criteria for deletion, but it's explicitly listed
> in the policy as something that shouldn't be dealt with by VfD. Under
> the title "*Problems that don't require deletion*" is the entry:
>
> Problem:
> Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article
> Solution:
> Merge he useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect
>
> So really, most of these "non-notability" issues shouldn't ever be
> brought to VfD in the first place - just merge them into main articles,
> like that traffic circle case from a few days back, and let the wiki
> process determine whether the merge was adequate or not. If peoples'
> beef is really with the _information_ being in Wikipedia, that's also
> something that can be sorted out via the wiki process - articles get
> trimmed and streamlined and split into sub-articles all the time without
> going through a voting process.
> _______________________________________________
It's certainly worth an article a few months back I came across an
article on a Scandinavian kid who'd been called B (or something
similar by their parents) but the government wouldn't allow it. Their
alternative wasn't much better. The fact unusual names are quite
uncommon makes any such name officially recognized by a country's
government quite notable. What was their argument for it not being
notable?

--Mgm