=>From: David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
=>
=>"Notability" STILL isn't a deletion criterion.
There are a number of policies which make notability
a
deletion criterion, even if they don't use the word
"notability". It's certainly used as a criterion often
enough; it may be the single most popular reason given
for deletion.
Jay.
LOL! When is a spade not a "spade"?
Answer: When it's an "earth-removal device".
Okay, class, we can put aside the obligatory joke and get to the heart
of the lecture.
I think our policies should be consistent. Otherwise we'll be
duplicating that sorry historical episode in which one person was
acquitted of bribery, while the guy he bribed was convicted for
receiving the very same bribe.
Too complex? Okay, let's try again.
If the person is not notable enough to have his own article, and we VOTE
to delete that article on those grounds, then how can we say that it's
crucial to Wikipedia's editorial independence to mention a "fact" about
him in another article? Especially when it's merely the FACT that
someone has called him a nasty name?
Can I mention in an article that Wikipedian Joey Fastwoney ducked out of
paying his share of the check at the First Boston Meetup? (By the way,
this really did happen, you can ask Danny. I just haven't decided
whether to "out" the poor slob. The conclusion of this debate will
determine whether I do or don't!)
And is it relevant that I don't really like Joey that much, for other
unrelated reasons? That is, must we consider my vengeful motivation, my
desire to embarass him about X because I'm really mad at him for Y?
Anyway, I've just started to dip into the A.U.K. newsgroup, and some of
the things it mentions are even worse than "kook of the millenium". Just
try clicking on this reference, if you dare. It's pretty gross, i.e.,
it's not very pretty.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/browse_thread/threa
d/41f8a13468d342a5/fcc6e23e6968dd04?q=wollman+++group:alt.usenet.kooks&r
num=6&hl=en#fcc6e23e6968dd04
I just searched for Wollman on Google groups, and this was one of the
first 10 hits. It makes "the pot calling the kettle black" seem tame
indeed.
Well, obviously there's a lot of anger and hostility and outrage being
expressed here. Should we really write about all the details? How about
summarizing what people on alt.flame say about each other? How is that
encyclopedic?
With all the time that's been wasted discussing this issue, a few of us
could have researched and written a fairly good article about AUK by
now.
For one thing, there's no point in mentioning that a certain person has
been "named kook of the millenium" unless we know WHY they chose to call
him that. And if there's any controversy, we ought to describe the major
sides fairly. (Hey, anyone around here remember NPOV?)
Otherwise, we just spread the anger around. It has even begun to infect
level-headed, even-tempered old Uncle Ed.
*sigh*
Now, let's forget all this nonsense and get back to work.
Ed Poor