User talk:Vassyana/notability

People need to use some damn sense

You write "People need to use some damn sense". Are you're sure you're always doing the same? He who is without fault shall throw the first stone. I must say, our policies WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BITE make a lot of sense to me.

In particular, I disagree with your statement "There is no such thing as "inherent" notability." This makes no sense as a rationale for speedy deletion. Of course the subject of an article can be notable, even if the article does not claim so yet. Take e.g. this article, and imagine the author had taken some time before adding the link to the newspaper. Would that have made it a wise decision to speedily delete the article? I don't think so. — Sebastian 00:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

First, it's clearly labeled as a "rant" in my userspace. You should expect it to be very strongly opinionated. As far as civil and the rest, I'm not posting on people's talk pages "use some damn sense". On AGF, assuming good faith has nothing to do with notability or encyclopedic worth. Someone can enter an entirely non-notable article perfectly in good faith. It doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean we have to pussyfoot around saying it's not appropriate for the wiki. A failure to "indicate why its subject is important or significant" is explicitly a CSD criteria. "There is no such thing as 'inherent' notability" is a broader statement, but can be applied to a rationale behind such a CSD nomination. However, in the end this is a userspace rant and you're free to ignore it if it bothers you. Vassyana (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point about it being marked as a rant. You also have a point about the difference between non-AGF and CSD. However, this is a far cry from pussyfooting when we have a process that is almost guaranteed to scare away people who may really act in good faith. It's not your fault, though, and I apologize for the template. — Sebastian 03:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. No apologies needed. We all have our opinions and views (though I may obviously strongly disagree with many other opinions *chuckle*). Don't apologize for expressing yours. Vassyana (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Something I noticed

I wasn't aware of this until recently - the notability guidelines are guidelines, not policies, meaning interpretation is a much more of a factor; I've seen articles where there was no notable, substantive coverage and the entry still sailed through an AFD. In particular, this page passed rather easily, as did this page. Sometimes notability passes purely based on the 'wow' factor. I never got it. Of course, Sartorius AG is still eminently deletable as is. No sources or notability. WLU (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it probably doesn't pass notability. A pity, because I really liked their products. I'll bring it up on AfD tomorrow. — Sebastian 03:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)