Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
The relentless discussion about deletion that I
am just catching up
with on this mailing list prompted to review a deletion decision that
got on my nerves back in June. "Full nice handbag co" was a pathetic
little article about a textile company in Hong Kong. It was never
much of an article, but it was real, neutral, factual, verifiable. It
was very narrowly VfDed (with a small majority of about 55-60% voting
delete) on grounds of non-notability. Following deletion, I objected
at VfU - my grounds for undeletion were that the reasons for deletion
were so tenuous (see below) and the majority so small that we should
have erred on the side of caution and kept the article
Notability is extremely subjective. To my mind, a manufacturing
company of twelve years standing is more notable than a minor
character in a Lord of the Rings book. But others disagree. The VfU
eventually failed - both to get the article undeleted and to raise
the issues about systematic biases of domain of knowledge of editors
affecting deletion.
Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I came to the conclusion that I would
be helping Wikipedia if I was bold and reinstated the article anyhow.
Unfortunately good old RickK got in a right tizz about this. Rick and
I have exchanged words that just about stay civil on our talk pages,
and Theresa Knott helpfully suggested I come here to the mailing list
(a kind of higher court than VfU if you will, and one arena more open
to more philosophical/esoteric debates) to see if I want did was
reasonable.
So here I am, throwing myself open to community opinion,
Pcb21
Out of interest, exactly why is that article notable? Serious question.
Notability is irrelevant. There's bugger-all that's serious about that
question.
Ec