[WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

Sun Sep 11 15:36:22 UTC 2005

Dan Grey wrote:
> What is this "standard of notability" anyway? I prefer Jimbo's guide
> to what should and should not be in: if the information is verifiable
> (ie it's been published somewhere, and most people who are going to
> interested in it can access it), and it's not original research, it
> deserves a place.

Just to be clear, I'm not 100% sure this is my position.  :-)

My position most certainly is that, *fortunately*, a lot of really
difficult issues *are* resolved by verifiability and no original
research.  Those two rules knock out a huge swath of certifiable
nonsense without even breaking a sweat.

There is now a magazine article (Florida Trend) which gives my mother's
name, and tells about the school which she founded, where I attended as
a child.  This information is now verifiable (it is in a magazine) and
the original research was done by a professional journalist (plus I can
personally vouch for it being true, for whatever that may be worth).

Even so, I do not think we should have an article about my mother.
She's a dear sweet wonderful person, to be sure, but not encyclopedic.

This is a case where I'm going to go with Kat Walsh (Mindspillage) and
say that I'm a "merge-ist".  Does the tidbit about my mom's school
deserve a separate article?  Absolutely not.  Does it belong somewhere
in the encyclopedia?  Sure.  Where?  In the article about me.

--Jimbo