I live inCleveland, Ohio, United States.

I am older than 15 and younger than 60.

You can probably guess my career from my username. Despite massive overexposure, I still like music. Well. . . . . . some of it. . . . . . . some of the time. . . . . . . . .

Three songs I never, never, never, never, never want to hear again:

1) Mustang Sally

2) Brown-Eyed Girl

3) Margaritaville

I am very curious, and consequently widely but shallowly read. So I'm sure I'll be popping up all around the Wikipedia universe.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types

Wikipedia:Redirect

Wikipedia:Duplicate articles

Category:Music stubs

Category: Musical instrument manufacturers

Category:Musical instrument stubs

Notability not a criterion for deletion?

I'm confused; please help me out here. On the VfD pages, just about the most-cited reason for deletion is that the subject (or even the article) is "not-notable". Fair enough. Yet inWikipedia:Deletion policy, the words "notability" or "notable" aren't even mentioned, and inWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it only applies to memorials of people. What's going on here? Are we all suffering from mass delusions, or is there some unwritten policy that states "non-notability" is a validcriterium criterion for deletion? If the latter, wouldn't it be a good idea to turn it into written policy instead? Thanks. --Plek 20:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Dons asbestos suit)

It's not worth fussing about.(Just as it's not worth fussing about whether "criterium" is an English word).

Wikipedia is the sum of what WIkipedians actually do. What actually happens is: sysops look at VfD discussions. For the most part, they base their actions on whether people vote "delete" or "keep." Written deletion policy is an effective tool that Wikipedians can use to influence the votes of other Wikipedians.

There was, last year, an attempt by a sysop to consider, when judging consensus, only those "delete" votes for which he judged the stated reasons for deletion to be in accord with the written policy. This attracted criticism, and as a result of the criticism he stopped exhibiting that behavior. So, I repeat, the de facto behavior of sysops is that a sincere expression by a non-sock-puppet user that an article should be deleted counts as a delete. Currently, in VfD asockpuppet vote is invalid, but areal vote citing bad reasons or no reasons is valid.

References to "notability" in VfD are the interplay of people trying to influence each other. Since many people,regardless of written policy, believes that notability should play some role in VfD decisions, votes are affected by that and it is a de facto criterion. Notice that there although there is avery wide range of opinion, it is very rare for things that areridiculously non-notable to survive VfD. I could write a factual article about the fire hydrant on my street and I assure you it would be voted for deletion and deleted, even though it's not a biography, even though there are a few überinclusionists whowould defend it on principle.

The big problem with notability is that nobody can come up with good objective bright-line definitions of what constitutes notability. People hate to admit that the content of Wikipedia is, in fact, the product of the consensus opinion and judgement of Wikipedians. So, absent a gooddefinition for notability, some argue that it should not be considered at all.

The reality is that this is an area of no consensus. Therefore, judgements and behavior are consistent forextremely notable andextremely non-notable topics, but the zone in which there is argument and inconsistent behavior is wide.

Another reality is that many Wikipedians think that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and notabilityis a criterion for inclusion in anything else you can point to that calls itself by that name.

So, with regard to notability, I don't expect to see it turned into written policy. And I don't expect to see observations that it isnot policy to change the behavior of people voting in VfD, or the behavior of sysops who act on those votes.Dpbsmith(talk) 21:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Dpbsmith. Policy is meant to change with the community, not vice-versa. As much as some of us would like to avoid voting on highly subjective grounds like notability (which has different meanings from person to person; my idea of notability seems highly inclusionistic compared to some of the notability grounds used in voting today), the fact remains that a good deal of the community *does* use notability as a reason for deletion. If the community wants an article to go, we shouldn't disregard their opinion just because it's based on something subjective, since the resolution of the issue of contention — should the article be deleted? — has been agreed upon.Johnleemk |Talk 08:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• In other words, while 'notability' is not part of the policy-as-written, it is ade facto criterium for deletion. Of course, this means that debates ensue over what exactly constitues sufficient notability.Radiant! 17:24, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Recommend Dpbsmith's observations be put in an annoying pastel-tinted box and posted byRambot to everyone's talk page.

Just kidding. But it's very good stuff, and it's a good introduction for the newbies who don't get what the big notabilityshibboleth is all about. Put it in a prominent place somewhere. Note thatWikipedia:Notability redirects toWikipedia:Importance, which (surprise) attempts to instate some definition as policy. We don't need copper-engraved policy at this stage, and possibly never; we need a good way to inform people what the whole fuss is about. I think Dpbsmith's observations get the job done very well.82.92.119.11 01:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)