Jump to content

Wikipedia:Non-notability and deletion poll

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2, WP:AN/I#Consensus creates policy, and elsewhere, the issue has come up as to whether non-notability is a valid criterion for listing an article on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion (i.e. AFDing an article), and why or why not. This poll is intended to gauge opinion on that issue. It is not intended to in any way determine policy or be binding on anybody.

Please add new sections as necessary.

Anything that people say is a reason for AFD is one, unless it's outlandish or bad-faith

[edit]
  1. ~~ N (t/c) 21:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC) I think the basic AFD policy should be "If the consensus says delete, delete it. No exceptions." The point of AFD is flexibility and discussion.[reply]
  2. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC). This isn't as anarchic as it sounds, because in a healthy discussion the things that people say influence other people, and accurate references to policy are quite influential. So if I say "Delete, foithboindercruft" I get counted as one vote, but have little influence, but if I say "Delete, Wikipedia:foithboinders says foithboinders should only be included if they have a frammis rank of better than 500, and this foithboinder has a frammis rank of 31415," I get counted as one vote and influence some other votes. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: this position is workable, because sysops usually agree pretty well when counting votes on this basis. The only alternative is for sysops to take it upon themselves to disregard votes by people giving "invalid" reasons, and that cure is far worse than the disease. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) But I'm worried that Dpbsmith defence of it is based upon a Utopian view of AfD discussions. I personally would like to be able to ignore any "vote" that includes no reason (it's not supposed to be a vote, but a discussion leading to consensus), and to discount votes that, for example, appeal to non-existent or misunderstood policies. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think "outlandish" is probably a big enough loophole. I do believe admins should determine rough consensus by exercising judgement. But I think you go too far. For example, AfDs on e.g. non-notable elementary schools it is very common now for people cite Wikipedia:Schools which is neither a policy nor a guideline. I feel that such votes should indeed be counted at face value. If sysops get too creative about closing AfDs we'll end up with an overcrowded VfU, and sysops reversing other sysops actions and so forth. Discounting sockpuppetry, sure. Discounting good-faith votes by people who are unfamiliar with or don't agree with policy, I don't think so. There's an analogy with "jury nullification." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What about unsupported claims regardless of thier relationship to policy or guidelines? If Dpbsmith says (not "votes") "Delete - Not notable, no google, no alexa, no Usenet groups" and Mel Etitis responds with "Keep - Is notable." shouldn't the admin discounts Mel's opinion? (Note that if Mel had said "Keep- Notability isn't policy" that would be different.)
    brenneman(t)(c) 23:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    My own view is, in the above hypothetical case, the admin should count Mel's vote as a "keep" even though such a vote is annoying and unconstructive. I believe that people should be very strongly encouraged to give reasons. I believe it is rude behavior simply to vote "keep, notable" or "delete, non-notable." I believe it is fair to comment on the validity of the reasons given by others. The VfD header used to instruct people specifically to give a reason; I wish it still did. But once you start saying that you are going to discount votes that don't give reasons or that give bad reasons, I think you're inviting Wikilawyering and gaming the system, and contention over closes. Everyone knows what "keep" and "delete" mean. Most experienced Wikipedians can agree on judgements of votes that should be discounted because of the possibility of sockpuppetry. But, despite policy, Wikipedians do not agree on what are valid reasons for deletion or how to define them. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm a little hesitant to vote this way, simply because I have noticed that most people that patrol the AFD pages are those who inherintely like to see wikipedia pages deleted for non-notability. However, I agree that this is the best solution. Overall, I think wikipedia has enough policies (I can't find them as is) so this is the best solution, I think. --Quasipalm 16:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. The wording of a nomination should never invalidate it, and whenever people call something non-notable they either have an existing and well-accepted guideline to back them up (e.g. WP:VAIN, WP:MUSIC, etc) or they get voted down. Radiant_>|< 10:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. My understanding is that all Wikipedia policies work this way. The Literate Engineer 05:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. If the consensus of an AfD discussion is to delete, the right thing is to delete. The criteria exist as things already agreed by general community consensus of when to invoke AfD. If something is appropriate for deletion or retention, the discussion that follows will bear that out. --Wingsandsword 19:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notability is a criterion for AFD because people believe it is, but I disagree with option #1

[edit]

Non-notability is a criterion for AFD for some other reason

[edit]
  1. Because it is an esential prerequisite of an encyclopediac article that it be about a notable subject. DES (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC) As DES. Discounting votes because someone is unfamiliar with the details of the deletion policy seems counterproductive to Wikipedia, and maybe slightly elitist too. It's tantamount to saying "Sorry, but Wikipedia thinks your opinion is absurd," even though it isn't -- there are plenty of people who hold the same opinion here (myself included, full disclosure). It's impossible, even damaging, to squelch peoples' opinions, and policies don't exist in a vacuum -- where they are broken, they can be fixed to reflect popular will, and inertia shouldn't be a reason to keep something that's broken. Policies of all sorts get changed every day because people think they're imperfect. That seems to me to be what's happening here. There are plenty of people who believe that notability should be a criterion, and in fact many believe it is. So how can we in good faith say it's not? Valid, well-meaning votes shouldn't be discounted just because someone disagrees with their position.[reply]
  3. ~~ N (t/c) 20:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC) Agree with DES too.[reply]
  4. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias do not cover every factoid that may exist in the universe, even if they can be verified to the pretty poor extend Wikipedia insists they must be. This is true of all encyclopedias, even if they are not paper and are editable by any retard with an internet connection. If the term "notability" is at issue then call it "significance", "importance", "encyclopedicness", or anything else you like, or whatever separates, say, me from Charles de Gaulle. -R. fiend 21:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In addition to Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, I believe there are two Wikipedia policies, to be found at WP:NOT Section 1.7 ("Not an Indiscriminate Collection of Information") and in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy table of "problems that may require deletion" where there are three applicable problems ("Is not suitable for wikipedia," vanity page, and "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic") that make being non-notability legitimate grounds for a deletion. In short: I believe non-notability is already explicitly, by policy, legitimate grounds for deletion. The Literate Engineer 05:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notability is not an acceptable reason to AFD, because Wikipedia:Deletion policy says so

[edit]
  1. JYolkowski // talk 00:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have argued for the maintenance of this position many times.--Nicodemus75 21:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notability is not an acceptable reason to AFD, for some other reason

[edit]
  1. Interiot // "Notability" is too easily abused, and is not necessary. And because Jimbo says so. --Interiot 18:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to play the Jimbo card, so will I. [1] "Yes, I very strongly think that notability is a valid inclusion standard. And the best way to judge notability, socially, is verifiability. But even things which are verifiable can and should in many cases be deleted." (If that turns out to be a forged posting, I'm going to be very disappointed...) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to pile on, but wanted to point this out as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (2nd nomination), in which Jimbo seems to be advocating for deletion on the grounds of both unverifiability and non-notability. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Tossing around "notability", which is an inherently subjective concept, and allowing it to be expressed into policy is extremely dangerous. There can be no question that the whole debate over schools (in no small measure why this poll exists, I am sure) will be adversely affected (not in the partisan sense that it may lead to more school deletions - trust me, I have little fear of schools being deleted at this stage) by allowing "notability" as a valid criteria. The acrimony and nastiness at AfD will simply be increased by this and divisiveness will be perpetuated. I think the current provision that notability apply to articles about persons is appropriate and sufficient. It does not need to be extended to other things.--Nicodemus75 21:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's a proxy for 'I'm not interested, so I don't think anyone else should be'. Plus, Deletion policy says it's not. Trollderella 06:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are evil

[edit]
  1. JYolkowski // talk 00:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Somebody will use the oucome of this poll to try to browbeat another editor. Polls are of very small use in working out how much support an idea has, but people take them to be defining, in the same way as an election. Grace Note 00:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What, then, is the best way to determine how widely supported something is? ~~ N (t/c) 00:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We need more stupid policy on deletion like we need a hole in the head. For God's sake, write more articles, argue about policy less, and worry less about what other people think is important. Trollderella 06:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polls aren't all evil, but this one is

[edit]
  1. --Nicodemus75 21:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Honestly, what's this going to accomplish except for proving that 50±10% of the Wikipedia population believes that non-notability is already a fully legitimate, appropriate, and policy-compliant reason to delete something, but 50±10% of the population disagrees completely? I mean, besides making some of us like some of each other less? The Literate Engineer 05:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-notability_and_deletion_poll&oldid=1138556170"