Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> Wikipedia painted itself into this corner.
>
Indeed, said corner being #5 website in the world according to recent
Comscore figures. The onus is still on those who think the system is
broken. ("Notability" has always been a broken concept, but the real
question is whether the system as a whole is broken, rather than whether
individual subjective judgements always agree with the result of
deletion processes.)
<snip>
>I proposed a change to the guideline, a
> special provision, that *generally* a recognized national member
> society of a notable international society would be notable. If you
> know the notability debates, you can anticipate the objections.
> "Notability is not inherited."
Indeed, it isn't. Some of the more high-profile associated topics of
notable topic X can be mentioned in the article on X, but that doesn't
mean they are all worth a separate article. Such decisions should go
case-by-case, but in general terms they are about structuring of
content, rather than permissible content. [[Mary Ball Washington]],
mother of George Washington, gets an article (not very substantial); her
mother doesn't. I don't see that "recognized national" is a very
different attribute from "notable", but certain office-holders might be
considered worth an article "ex officio" (general notability doesn't
recognise anything ex officio, I think, but arguably more special
guidelines could.)
<snip>
Charles
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
