[WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution attempt in the Ashida Kim case

Tue Oct 4 21:28:51 UTC 2005

Brian Haws wrote:

> I have to ask, you used the word notable a couple times in your reply
>  but in the actual AFD entry description here you used verifiable 
> information as a standard to judge inclusion.
> 
> Do you see notablility as a inclusion standard? Or is notability just
>  a another way to express that something can be verified. And as such
>  doesn't have a separate meaning (in AFD debates) to judge Wilipedia 
> inclusion standards?

Yes, I very strongly think that notability is a valid inclusion standard.

And the best way to judge notability, socially, is verifiability.  But
even things which are verifiable can and should in many cases be
deleted.  It would be quite possible to start posting detailed
information about private individuals by combing through online tax
records.  We could even have a bot to do it.  And it would all be
verifiable from reliable sources.  But I think it clear that we would
not do that because detailed information about private individuals is
not notable.

And we should recognize that some social problems we have been having
lately can be traced back to flamewars between non-notable people on the
Internet spilling over into Wikipedia.  This case is probably the best
example.

--Jimbo