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?
Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Hmm, looks like Wikipedia is going to become the New
Usenet, where
people will scream blue murder if you don't write about them exactly how
they want you to (if at all)...
Well, let's try to avoid being the New Usenet, whatever we do. :-)
I have (clumsily, I'm not a very experienced editor) renominated the
page for deletion. My essential argument is that Ashida Kim is not
prominent, there is no verifiable information about him (no newspaper
articles, no nothing other than a bunch of message board flamewars and
his own website).
I have noticed a trend in my personal correspondence recently. It seems
that what Wikipedia is attracting these days is spillover flamewars from
other parts of the net. Non-notable people who have rolling pissing
matches all over the web end up trolling (perhaps by accident) us, in
our goodnatured goodwill intention of getting it right in all cases, etc.
In many such cases, it is not clear to me why we even have an article
about the person in the first place. Non-notable in the extreme,
troublemaking in the extreme, these kinds of cases absorb rather a great
deal of time for a lot of good people for no good purpose.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l