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: 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

This is where I speak up and put the mergist solution, which will probably surprise those who incorrectly believe me to be an inclusionist. I've put in a proposal to merge the indisputable bibliographic information to a suitable martial arts article and redirect there. If there is more fuckwittery the redirect can be protected. The problem can be contained without compromising the verifiable information. This also addresses Jimmy's perfectly sensible remark that the flame war stuff is unverifiable, the same kind of tripe we said goodbye and good riddance to in the Edmond Wollmann case. Usenet and web forums breed endless nonsense like this. Even a comparatively stable forum like Urban75 breeds trolls of such ferocity and such invincible stupidity that some days you feel like you'd rather stab your eyes out with a broken bottle than go to look at the history of the last 24 hours edits. Ashida Kim may be a popular author, and we should note his books, but we don't need to host his interminable catfights.

On Tuesday, October 4, 2005, at 02:31 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: Yeah - just remember that AfD isn't a one-time process. Often with all the mirror hits and whatnot wikipedia gets it makes it difficult for people to verify what's real and what's not (this applies to every subject, especially original research). The Ashida Kim nomination is a good case. If someone looks at the last VfD it was nearly to keep. Now in this one it was initially all to keep, then the regulars like myself began to come in, and now as you see the deletes are starting to pile on. Probably won't result in that though - one of the things is that a lot of people don't change their vote much (I and some regulars do though), so often a subject has to be renominated a few times before there is finally a consensus on the issue, as many times it finally gets deleted mostly because the people who voted keep in the last discussion see the "new" arguments there (it would be either if they kept a close eye on the conversation though). So, it works more or less... sometimes it just takes a few tries for either deletion or keeping :). Its not perfect though :\. Thanks, Ryan [[User:RN]] at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RN Ryan Norton at wxforum: http://wxforum.org

Geoff Burling wrote: And additionally, I should note, my presumption of non-notability could be easily defeated by pointing to an article or two in legitimate mainstream martial arts magazines. Or, as in the case of Sollog, a newspaper article or two about him being eccentric would suffice. *nod* "Non-notable; delete" is a pretty lame vote. :-) But so is "notable; keep". --Jimbo

---- *Delete, not notable Fred Bauder 18:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC) ---- That will now be memorialized on my user page!!!! Ryan [[User:RN]] at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RN Ryan Norton at wxforum: http://wxforum.org

Jimmy Wales wrote: What's frightening about this statement is the tendency of some members of this community to view it as an absolute ''ex cathedra" pronouncement. In the light of your other comments on this matter, it is clear that your views are considerably more textured. Some editors frown upon texture. Idiotic as it may be, it is a fact of life that some editors will say, "Delete, not-notable," or "Keep, notable," as their entire justification for action with respect to some article. I'm sorry, but this sounds a little weaselly. The first sentence makes sense, but then verifiability is a relatively objective criterion that stands alone. If something is not verifiable that's it, and whether it leads to a determination of notability is moot. Of course there are verifiable materials that should still be deleted. There are any number of perfectly acceptable criteria that allow us to do this Respect for privacy will handle this without regard to notability. My primary objection to the notability criterion remains the high degree of subjectivity that goes into determining whether it applies. While notability can be a factor in some deletion decisions, it is unwise to use it as a stand-alone reason for deletion. I am not particularly interested in the Ashida Kim matter, have not followed it, and have no intention to find out anything about it. Nevertheless if it is nothing more than flame war spillage it should certainly be treated as non-encyclopedic whether or not the participants are notable. Ec

"not notable" and "notable" are both quite valid because they are part of a discussion. Things like "KEEP ALL SCHOOLS" and "DELETE ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS" are much less so. Ryan [[User:RN]] at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RN Ryan Norton at wxforum: http://wxforum.org

On 10/7/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think this is a problem we'll always have with use of shorthand. Elsewhere on this mailing list today we've seen the action of informal community consensus during editing seriously mischaracterized by use of the shorthands "tag team" and "meat puppet". The specific problem with the shorthand "not notable" is precisely that it doesn't give a single clue to the person reading it, what would constitute notability. Also as noted earlier by a number of editors: the fact that a subject may not be notable isn't in itself a good reason for deleting the article. Nearly all AfDs for notability are prima facie merge candidates upon which nobody has as yet attempted a merge. I wonder if we could agree to change policy to permit an administrator to "speedy redirect" a merge candidate and close an AfD where notability is the sole or principal reason given for deletion, or no reason is given. This would be a good way of ensuring that the possibility of merging articles was not unreasonably neglected. An article could always be renominated if good faith attempts to merge had failed.