Talk:Mohammed Amon

A no-doubt well-meaning contributor...

A no-doubt well-meaning contributor has triggered a concern for me. They have called upon the authority of the essay WP:PUFF in the edit summary as a justification for an edit.

WP:PUFF is an essay, not a policy, or a guideline. Although this essay is widely called upon as if it were a wikipedia policy, it is not. It is just the personal opinion of some wikipedia contributors. Calling upon the authority of this essay is not a substitute for a specific explanation.

The authors of this essay are critical of the use of the phrase "is notable because". It is an awkward phrase, placed in wikipedia articles to clearly and explicitly bar overly hasty fans of speedy deletion to try to delete new small articles as meeting speedy deletion criteria A7 -- no assertion of notability.

That this phrase is necessary is a reflection of a weakness of the wording and interpretation of WP:CSD. It is routine for some fans of speedy deletion to claim articles lapse from A7, without regard for multiple implicit assertions of notability. The underlying problem is that assessing "notability" requires a frankly subjective judgment, but we mistakenly treat it as if were a judgment that can be reached by consulting an objective standard.

In general I am concerned whenever an essay is cited as if it were an actual policy.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit you are speaking about.

The edit summary for this edit:

I think there is no strong reason to include this. Possible OR and maybe WP:PUFF

Your allegations against the contributor are wrong and an example of Ad hominem.

Please give us the reasons for inclusion if you disagree.

Cheers! IQinn (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)