Knowledge (XXG) talk:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Fame and importance

694:, that's who. The object of this poll is completely ridiculous and, in principle, contradicts the very spirit of Knowledge (XXG). If this poll is taken seriously it will give envious little gremlins with too much time on thier hands the excuse to destroy 30 to 70 percent of the entries on Knowledge (XXG). Further, it just seems like this is clever way for some people to get more leverage on deleting the pages of wiki users they have a beef with, and that is basically it. So I guess you are saying you can have an article on Superman, but not on Krypton the wonderdog, because he is not as famous. What appeals to me about Knowledge (XXG) in the first place is that you can potentially find information on virtually anything. If you give editors on here the power to arbitrarilly delete entries because 615:

knowledgeable user visit this entry afterwards, he or she may either modify the expiration date or remove it altogether (turns out the mayor is a vampire after all). To top all that, if Knowledge (XXG) is to last longer then one should hope to presume (as in "over 5 years"), it will, in the fullness of time, require a Knowledge (XXG) Archive (for storing, for instance, a list of a characters of a book nobody has ever heard of) - although a full description of that should not be provided here. One day I'll compose, in the safety of my user page, a lengthy article detailing my views on all of the above, and nobody will ever read it.

1181:

borrowing them from suspect websites). The existing tendency to delete articles on thoroughly unfamous topics would tend to protect against this, since it means most Knowledge (XXG) topics have at least three or four editors who have at least heard of them and will correct blatant misrepresentations. This would not be true of all verifiable topics, without original research, that someone might want to start a page on. "Almost nobody has ever heard of this" is a salient objection to an article precisely because it implies "probably no Knowledge (XXG) editor is familiar enough with this topic to be inclined to police the page".

1219:. The constitution of the United States of America is a model for MANY organizations, because it has proven to work and lend endurance to organizations that emulate it over time. Chances are, if an organization violates the spirit of such a constitution its going to serve to create a system that makes a couple of people happy and a lot more people miserable. Which was the entire aim of this poll to begin with. Contrary to popular belief the United States of America is not a Democracy; which simply equates mob rule or anarchy, it is a Republican Democracy, and as such operates on an entirely different set of principles.(: 2142:: there will be a fair bit of verifiable information on them from secondary sources (press reports) but the primary source for most of this information is the candidate themselves (or their opponents). After the election, when the press is no longer printing information about the candidate and the candidate's press office has shut down, how can we verify any continuing information on this person, who is no longer in any sense a public figure? In ten years time, is their failure to achieve office, and no verifiable information added since, a fair reflection of who they are? 1482:

subjects should be deleted for being non-famous, however I am stating that if a subject is non-famous, then (by definition) the chances are small of there being other Wikipedians who can verify the information and counter bias. As such, these articles should be treated with extreme suspicion until corroborating sources can be found. In my personal opinion, this suspicion should extend to deletion if no external sources are readily available, i.e. the assumption here should be guilty until some argument for innocence is presented.

356:: Personal webpages can easily be created on something like Geocities or one of the thousands of other webhosting services out there. Let's keep Knowledge (XXG) for content that could genuinely be researched. While it is difficult to quantify the exact amount of fame or noteriety needed, I think we can usually judge for ourselves what is and isn't important. Remember, there are over 6.5 billion people out there, each with their own story. I personally only want to find the ones that have had some notable impact on society. 2083:

architects, I'm going to assume that all of them are fairly well-known people who have either designed notable buildings, or had some significant effect on the course of architectural history. If one of these articles is included because the architect is a contributor's grandfather, this article is implicitly misleading. A reader trying to get a broad view of the subject (which is, after all, what an encyclopedia is for) will waste time reading this entry (even if it's true and verifiable, it's not what the user wanted.)

1558:

site, and another one for his dog, it would look appalling. This could of course be dealt with to an extent by biassing the random page generator, but when Knowledge (XXG) advertises "we have X thousand articles", I believe that it is dishonest not to qualify that with "of which several thousand are auto-generated from US census data". If any and all articles about someone's mate Dave were welcomed, we would have to add "and several thousand more are about otherwise poorly-documented subjects".

704:- "Importance" or "fame" are subjective criteria. My two (personal) criteria for inclusion of biographies, are 1) verifiability of information -- can someone who doesn't know the individual verify the facts (all the more reason to get a workable citation system up ASAP), and 2) linkability -- are they linked to (or could they reasonably be linked to) in a non-biographical article, excluding lists (which suggests that we also have a long way to go in creating non-bio articles). The non-policy at 630:

is correct in that we already have good operationalizable criteria like "verifiability", "promotion/advertising", etc. We have to ask ourselves if introducing this new criterion will help us obtain the non-triviality objective better than we are able to with only existing criteria. If existing criteria sets the triviality bar too low, we have to come up with better additions than "fame" because this is just asking for a subjective popularity contest on each VFD entry.

1114:

latter means that we can verify a statement by performing an experiment to see it if is true. When we require verifiability, we mean "by recourse to authority". Your articles about the trees outside your home are theoretically verifiable by experiment, but they are not verifiable by recourse to authority until you have found a reputable venue in which to publish your findings (and cited the publication in the article). Similarly, if I write an article on

273:- I understand the concerns of those on the "No" side, but I personally have confidence in the names who are voting yes that we will not abuse this rule (if it goes into effect). If we use this rule to trample other people's beliefs and values, that will violate Wikiquette; if we use the rule (as I believe it is intended) to make the process of ridding ourselves of vanity-type articles easier and more painless, I think we'll all actually get along better. 1715:. He may or may not have been famous enough to be in the Knowledge (XXG). In that case, we were informed by the Spanish Knowledge (XXG), but in the future we might have no such sources. And I don't know enough--nor does the relatively limited community of VfD contributors--to make calls like that. In such a situation, we have to follow the principle of least harm. Which does more damage: deleting legitimate content and alienating contributors (which 1562:

splitting it into sections or keeping it in once piece. It is not possible to compromise between deleting it and not deleting it. So if there is genuine disagreement on these kinds of issues, a balanced "NPOV" solution is impossible. The organisation of the 'pedia cannot be done from a neutral point of view, hence neutrality can be sacrificed to expediency in this case, and a "not NPOV" argument can't be applied on either side of this argument.

684:- Maybe it's just the wording. I'm not really worried about deletion of "vanity articles", but I hope this doesn't lead to the deletion of non-famous and not very important towns, cultures, languages and other information. (Which I'm sure it's not intended to do, i don't mean to sound paranoid!) But I don't see too much wrong with an article about an obscure school, as long as they don't modify other pages inappropriately to link to it. 647:- 'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the 'Yes' vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms. Consider an obscure scientific concept, ' 771:, but marketing disapproved), but it can allow itself to accrue as much information as possible. Then again, I hold the extreme view that the only articles worthy of deletion (aside from tests, vandalism and pages that contain absolutely no information - e.g. "The town of Smallvile is a town called Smallville") are vanity pages. The rest should be, at most, merged into other articles, possibly the 2166:

are actually true, or just endlessly repeated versions of the subject's own PR? Of course this is inevitable when covering living subjects. Nobody is going to bother covering a living subject unless they are famous, or the author has an agenda to pursue. So, in my view, the shorthand "notable" means they have attracted enough dispassionate third-party interest to make the details functionally

1708:, however, I don't believe it works. I rarely see anon comments on VfD, and indeed that page is heavily tilted away from being "new-user friendly", full of slang and so on that takes time to pick up. As such, I'm forced to assume that the only people who get a look at most of the candidates there are a (relatively) small group of regular contributors. We ARE NOT a representative sample. 42: 2034:

Another tool could be made with almost the reverse metrics, suggesting articles at random that are likely to need editting in case someone just wants to learn something at random (from non Knowledge (XXG) sources on the net etc), and add what they learned to the knowledge here (or just reorganise and grammar check a few random articles, whatever).

447:: An editor I've been dealing with is clearly using WP as a medium for promoting himself within a field he is not recognized, and has gone to rather elaborate efforts to do so. He is continually making pages or links that relate to his work, lacking any substantiation by people in the industry or community at large. Generally I can refer 1454:

have articles, but my friends' band, Lovenut & the Weird Beards, would not, even though I think they're quite good. I suppose this doesn't really help define any criteria for inclusion, because it depends on what I believe are likely topics for and in a published encyclopedia, but that's the criteria I use, and it has served me well.

651:' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes 176:- although needs quantifying.Obscure subjects are fine (and to be encouraged), articles aimed at children/young people are fine (all the video games etc), but someone who thinks they are a famous whatever and they are not, or someone who has a crank theory that exists only on usenet is not. Autobiographies are bad, self-promotion is bad. 1908:. The first Ambition page was written in (I believe) November by another author, and had many problems. At the request of many Knowledge (XXG) users (including myself) it was deleted, and I (the inventor of Ambition) was called to write a new article. The "fame debate" surfaced in the deletion debates surrounding this article. 600:-- perhaps a 'superencyclopedic' wiki could be created largely as a place to put all of these personal, local, and quaint articles which are regularly slated for deletion? a user's family tree, bios of "unimportant" people like the locak teachers and doctors who keep small communities together, neighborhood landmarks, etc. 1966:<<It is already the case that something like 1 in 5 articles in Knowledge (XXG) is a stub containing raw demographical data for an American village or town. This makes the place look bad. If we also had an article for everyone who stumbles across the site, and another one for his dog, it would look appalling.: --> 763:, and one has no means of knowing which are important to whom. More important, however, is the age-old Knowledge (XXG) is Not Paper. It may not be an agglomeration of all human knowledge, the later being for the most part far too devious in nature to be distributed freely over the internet (come to think of it, 2086:

Here's a possible way to judge "relevance" or "importance". Imagine that the subject of the article never existed. What would be different? How many people would notice, and how much would it affect them? Unfortunately this metric still isn't perfect, as it would for examle have us removing a lot

2005:

Multiple edits do indeed improve quality of a page dramatically, I agree. Even the best writers have to write multiple drafts of their work before publication, and often rely to some degree on other people to revise and edit their work. Frequency of edit could be an alternate weight for the function.

1911:

In my opinion, fame should not be the metric of inclusion, for reasons stated above. As for "importance", I don't even know how I would define that. Who's qualified to say what's "important"? I'm not. Certainly my cat is important to me, but I wouldn't write a page for her, include her birthday under

1578:

We serve the readers. The readers should decide whether something belongs to the encyclopaedia or not. We should have a system to get readers comments and use them for deleting or keeping the articles. If the readers want Knowledge (XXG) to list biographies of all ants of Earth, we should allow that.

1486:

IMO, better to risk having biased information than no information at all. No matter what source you get your information from, the reader should always be aware that the source may be biased. That ever goes for printed encyclopedias. As for something on the internet, well, everyone knows how reliable

1448:

Several people wanted criteria for how famous one has to be. When I decide my opinions on subjects, I consider Knowledge (XXG) as a collection of encyclopedias on specialist subjects. For example, it would be reasonable for an encyclopedia of punk rock, Japanese history or conspiracy theories to be

1154:

I'm coming in even later here, but I have another example that may be useful. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints maintains vast stores of genealogical information. I believe the Church could reasonably be considered an authority on genealogy, and it would be possible to write thousands

1113:

I'm coming in very late here, but I think it's worth distinguishing between "verifiable by recourse to authority" and "verifiable by recourse to experiment". The former means that we can verify a statement by checking whether someone we trust (such as an authority in the field) has affirmed it. The

1105:

verifiable by the Knowledge (XXG) community. When I say 'verifiable' I don't mean 'in some abstract fantasy theory' I mean actually practically verifiable by Wikipedians. But more imporatantly, this information also violates another of our rules "no original research", which surely it is. The only

880:

I agree with Jimbo. I also agree that if someone cares enough to write an informative article about a subject, then that article deserves a place in the Knowledge (XXG). In other words, single-line vanity articles should probably remain subject to deletion; but if the article can be reasonably deemed

785:

The less famous someone is, the more important that they be documented here, as chances are you can't find as much information on the web about them. There are billions of pages about Tiger Woods or Britney Spears on the web, so if they weren't in Knowledge (XXG), the world wouldn't suffer. If John Q

714:

More information is always better in my opinion. I agree that importance and fame are subjective. I also feel that deleting information is not only anti-wiki, it is contrary to the spirit if the First Admendment. I have the right to speak my mind. Others have the right to disagree with me. No one has

592:

who later becomes governor. In which case it will be wonderful to have your old thoughts about him handy. And even if only twenty people in the world care about your information -- the local place-names for landmarks in your home village 40 miles outside of Islamabad, in all 12 regional dialects --

87:

This poll is not saying something has to be famous/important to be included in wikipedia. It says does there exist some threshold of fame/importance which articles should exceed, without specifying what that threshold should be. That is it is on the principle should we include articles on everything

2009:

Does Knowledge (XXG) have the capability to track frequency of access? I think, perhaps, web stats on each page would be interesting. As said above, web stats could be used to weight the Random Page function. Also, it could be used to compile a "Top 100 Most Visited Knowledge (XXG) Sites" list which

1538:

Certainly a lot of leeway and deference are going to be given to regular contributors with a good reputation. But when challenged, a non-verifiable statement should be made into a verifiable one (usually by attributing it to someone), or removed. Also, verifiability is much less of a standard than

1518:

If it's better to risk having no information at all than incorrect information, nobody should ever add information to an article, because there's a chance it could be incorrect. Frankly, I'd rather take the attitude that people have the benefit of the doubt and it's accurate unless there's reason to

1502:

seems to suggest that the vast majority of contributors wouldn't agree here either. It's up to the submitter to make sure that all contributions are verifiable. If the source isn't readily available online, then it should be noted in the comments. Anything not verifiable is subject to being moved

1397:

On vfd the argument comes up several times a week whether any topic at all can be included in wikipedia or if criteria including fame/importance should be used. This isn't an issue where a "compromise" can be reached because it depends on the fundamental belief of the individual on what wikipedia is

724:

The thresholds used today are unduly high for many things, so, overall, no, using them is harmful, even though I agree that there are cases where insufficiently famous is merited. Insufficiently important is far more often used inappropriately than insuffiiently famous, IMO and is the biggest factor

256:

is full only of those seeking to (vastly) enhance their Google presence, and the article becomes useless). Stuff that should be in the encyclopedia but is erroneously removed will (by definition) be reinserted (hopefully by someone else entirely). Yes, it's subjective - everything we all do here is

2165:

series (I have a copy). I have found a number of details about Hooke, a well-studied subject, which turn out to be questionable, but have gained credence due to repetition. Gunther addresses these and debunks them, citing evidence. How can I distinguish whether facts about a biographical subject

1453:

would include an entry on an otherwise non-famous high school, but even the most bizarre educational style or teaching tool would have an article, and thus can have one in Knowledge (XXG). Plenty of extremely obscure punk rock bands, who perhaps existed for a brief period and never recorded, might

1373:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy. In general decisions are made by consensus (see consensus decision making) rather than a strict majority rule. However, on occasion it is useful to take a poll of opinions on some issue, as an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the

863:

if there are more articles about Lord of the Rings than Thermodynamics? There will always be imbalances -- it is a constantly evolving project. Who is judging us? Who is looking at the alphabetized list of articles and "tsk"-ing over the proportions of serious to trivial? Why be rabid about our

858:

for trivial information here, precisely because they won't find it elsewhere. And it's not like the details of the perfectly played Pacman game are going to appear in Featured Articles on the Main Page. The deletionists seem more concerned about the "appearance" or "reputation" of Knowledge (XXG)

629:

be. They are virtually unoperationalizable. Never-the-less, the objective of discouraging "trivial" entries remains sound. The question is, How can that be done without lowering ourselves to subjective assessments of what we feel is important or using popular culture indices like Google hits. Jimbo

438:

to be enforced. This is true of any legitimate encyclopedia, this one included. Without explicit standards being set, not only does the general quality of the content come into question, this entire site becomes open for efforts that are guided by agendas other than the providing of information.

2173:

And actually if a mathematical theory is so abstruse that few can understand or verify it, that is arguably grounds for its exclusion (at least as a subject outside of its proponent). That doesn't meant that anything above elementary trigonometry should not be here, but it does mean that something

1609:

We ARE the readers of Knowledge (XXG). We are also the writers and editors. The main concept is that this is not written by one group for the use of another group. Instead, it is intended as a collaboration by the readers. With this in mind, deleting in the manner done now is being done by the

1557:

2. Knowledge (XXG) has a "random page" generator. It is already the case that something like 1 in 5 articles in Knowledge (XXG) is a stub containing raw demographical data for an American village or town. This makes the place look bad. If we also had an article for everyone who stumbles across the

1302:

people from covering this in some way, I might understand the argument. But they don't -- I would argue that they may even encourage people to become contributors, because it shows them that their own personal corner of the world (be it their neighborhood school, their Rubik's cube hobby, etc) IS

1230:

the issue here. If Knowledge (XXG) restricts article pages in any way, it is not depriving anyone of their freedom of speech. We allow (almost) anything on user pages. If we are to use the US constitution as a model, we should remember that even there, freedom of speech has limits (e.g. you cannot

341:

something significant to be included - for good or bad (granted, there was a British aristocrat - whose name I have forgotten - who was famous for spending most of his life in bed, but there is always an exception or thirteen). Of course and unfortunately, due to laws of newsworthiness, that would

2210:

I have a real issue with people saying that someone's death wasn't important. Especially the fact that a 12 year old girl was desperate enough to kill herself. We will never know what was going through her head when she pulled that trigger and the fact that you people have the audacity to say her

2055:

No of course not! The last thing we need is people spamming the encyclopedia with links to their VfD'd article in an attempt to have it not deleted. People should check backlinks before they take an article to VfD, but those links should not determine whether or not something is deleted. It's too

1835:

1750:

I think "fame" is, at best, a poor shorthand for what we're really trying to get at here. Perhaps a better word is "relevance". I mean, hell, I've created a few entries myself for people who wouldn't exactly qualify as famous by most standards, but have significant historical relevance far beyond

1561:

3. Yes, a judgement of "famous" is influenced by point of view. However, there are many other issues in the organisation of the Knowledge (XXG) which always are, and always will be, influenced by the subjective opinions of the authors. With a given article it is not possible to compromise between

1481:

1. Non-famous subjects in Knowledge (XXG) tend to be either people or schools. In each case, the article is typically written by the subject, or someone close to the subject. I believe this raises two immediate problems, of bias and of verifiability. To this extent I'm not stating that non-famous

1207:

Two points; a) Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia not a forum for 'speaking your mind' and b) the first amendment to the Constitution of Ireland extended to conflicts in which the State is not a participant the provision for a state of emergency to secure the public safety and preservation of the

1040:

Ok, let me try a slightly less contrived example. Many small-town newspapers have a "police blotter" column, listing many law-enforcement events of the community, such as speeding violations. Would an article about how so-and-so (nonfamous) was ticketed for going 36 MPH in a 25 MPH zone deserve a

1363:

being held? Where is the discussion in which people have put forward arguments for and against excluding articles on subjects that are not famous or "important", and tried to come to a consensus decision? Has there even been a centralised discussion of this issue at all? This fashion for solving

1093:

Please address the following possibility: I take photographs of each tree outside my home and build articles giving the history of each tree, complete with photographs through the seasons. I do the same with the street lamps, describing the individual numbers and markings from damage and such to

2033:

Maybe two different tools could be useful, one prominent that has filters/biases to avoid stubs, very short articles, and articles that have very few edits - this would be for people that just want to browse and see if they can find something interesting to read up on with no particular agenda.

1180:

Later still. Let's imagine that Knowledge (XXG) does grow to many times its present size. There might then be too MANY statements to verify, even if each individual statement were verifiable; because verifying statements is more time-consuming and less popular than producing statements (e.g. by

894:: I agree with Jimbo Wales. There is something which can be learnt from everybody/everything, and the Knowledge (XXG) should aim to preserve information- whether or not it is deemed 'famous' or 'important.' I see where the people who argue 'yes' are coming from, but I don't fully agree with it. 835:

Normally you wont come to an article unless you either search for it or you follow a link. So it really does not matter if an article that has no importance stays (text hardly takes any place.) If on the other hand someone did search or click a link he/she definately wanted to know more. So the

2082:

I think we need some concept along the lines of importance, because otherwise we can unintentionally mislead the reader. Whether we use importance as a criterion or not, I'm sure most users will assume that we do, just like any other encyclopedia. If I'm a reader and I find 15 biographies of

1678:

If an article actually contains information on its subject, it should stay. Or, - To reverse the context - As long as it isn't gibberish, or spam, or something that isn't related to the article, it should stay. People say its a dictionary word? So are many of the articles on here. Let it grow.

1060:

Hard disk space is practically free. The man-hours required to fill a hard-disk is some ridiculously high number. Also, you copyedit and verify what you want to. Why does a poor article on an abscure topic reflect poorly on Knowledge (XXG)? The only people who will look up such a topic will be

1032:

that makes the page objectionable, it's the lack of verifiability. It's just someone's random musings about a private matter, and there's no way for external confirmation or disconfirmation. Therefore, it isn't encyclopedic. 'Qubit field theory' on the other hand, is encyclopedic, precisely

469:

think importance is a criterion, users will likely assume that we use it. Hence if we have articles on subjects that are far less notable than whatever else we have in the same general subject area, we potentially mislead the reader. Also we don't want to encourage self-promotion or we'll be

1413:

Well, we'll never know if a consensus (nicer than a "compromise"...?) can be reached unless we try! Setting up a system whereby the community is forced to polarise itself into two diametrically opposed camps is not helpful. If we're just blindly pulling in opposite directions, we'll never get

1020:

belong in Knowledge (XXG). Take some random web page, created by John Doe, age 13. It lists John's favorite TV programs, which Pokemon cards he has, etc. Is this verifiable? Certainly the contents of the web page are verifiable. Can it be written about in a NPOV fasion. Sure. Should it be in

786:

Citizen isn't in Knowledge (XXG), I've got nowhere else to go to find out about them. Therefore, I think it's important to document less famous people. Aside from that, not only is deciding who's famous a POV issue, the choice to impose a famous criterion at all is making a POV judgement.

614:

articles, due to reasons too numerous to mention (not to mention being excessively long). In addition, I favor putting an "expiration" date on articles - a note saying "by xx/xx/xxxx this article will probably be outdated (for instance, a current, non-vampiric, mayor of a town). Should a

1746:

It's very possible for someone who isn't particularly famous to be important enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry -- a scientific researcher who's made a major medical discovery, for instance, is undeniably important, but may not necessarily be famous in the usual sense of the word.

1618:

There are many more readers that the paltry few who choose to edit, my friend. I began as only a reader, after having been reccomended to use the wiki by a reader (non-editor) and I often discuss the wiki w people who read, and do not edit. Do not underestimate the silent majority ;)

1719:

happen, if fame is the criterion) or allowing irrelevant content to sit? Nonsense should be deleted; things should be moved to other wikis, as appropriate; bad writing should be improved; but non-famousness should not, given the constraints of reality, be a criterion for deletion.

655:

encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. (Though perhaps only as a stub, of course, since it's very complicated and not many people would know how to express it clearly in layperson's terms.) See

2001:

I don't use Random Page often. It's unlikely that something "random", i.e. chosen out of all the possible concepts in existence, will be interesting to me. I use Knowledge (XXG) quite often when I'm looking for a specific thing, but I don't often just go "surfing" here.

1418:

to be rational people here. Even if it's not true, it's a good game. What happens is, we put forward arguments for our positions, and other people argue against them, and eventually someone persuades someone of something, and we all move a step closer to enlightenment.

1728:

I don't know about others but I certainly don't vote on the basis of whether I think something is famous. At the very least I do web and usenet search to investigate, more often than not I then go over to specialized databases such as Lexis-Nexis (newspaper archive),

1307:

worked hard to contribute, within their sphere of knowledge? Yes, it will take work to tag articles for significance for various filters, forks and print projects. But is that really more work than wrestling each article through the contentious VfD process, and

2113:

Yes, you're right, let's start removing obscure math and science articles. Hardly anyone will notice, and even those who do will not be able to stop us, because people who think obscure math articles are important are in a small minority! Where shall we start!?

1938:

Neither of the above examples are world famous, but both pertain to subjects that a new user, during his or her first visit to Knowledge (XXG), could conceivably have enough interest in to type the queries directly into the search-box in the upper-right corner.

1803:

see her importance but not everybody in the whole world will, and the same can be said for every single article in Knowledge (XXG), some will see the importance and some won't. And it shouldn't be a domininance of the majority over the minority either, if only

1468:

Who decides what is important and what is not? How can one decide what is important while maintaining a neutral point of view? I suggest that if the conclusion is Yes, it be implemented cautiously with guidelines which should be debated and not be rigid. -

267:- Encyclopedias do not contain "personals", resumes, or advertisements. Knowledge (XXG) is kind enough to allow personal user space for whatever you feel you need to say about yourself or others as long as you don't link to it from the general encyclopedia. 455:) in an edit with an explanation, but I'd really just prefer the option of establishing a lack of subject credibility (unpublished, undocumented, unsupported, and unestablished work) and move on rather than have to refight the same battle over and over. 1487:

such information is. "I read it on the internet so it must be true" is a widely used sarcastic remark! I say if it can't be verified, assume the best, and rely on the reader taking things with a grain of salt (as they should do for all articles anyway).

912:

09:00, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC) Several thousand people may be interested in something with small fame or importance, for example High Schools. Knowledge (XXG) is an excellent place to catalog information about such things, like other encyclopedias never

1565:

All that said, I'm not voting. I don't wan't non-famousness to be a criterion for deletion. However I can't see how Knowledge (XXG) with its current organisation could possibly be improved by large numbers of articles about very obscure subjects.

1048:

infinite and free (of cost). Nor are the efforts of Wikipedians, who must copyedit and (ideally) verify all these articles. Having a poor article on an obscure and unimportant topic will still reflect poorly on Knowledge (XXG). Shouldn't there be

985:, but "fame" and "importance" are highly subjective things. What is important and famous to one is worthless crap to the other. Fame and importance can contribute to the wikipedifiability of a subject, but they are by no means the only criteria. 1952:

An article about a high-school or strictly local band would be deleted, on a similar principle: Almost no one would have the opportunity to see this band's performances, anyway, so what general interest would such an article have? Almost none.

1386:

or some such thing, and use it to discuss the reasoning behind this suggestion (assuming there is any), and try to come to a consensus about precisely what sorts of material should be ineligible for inclusion, and, just as importantly, why. --

114:- but perhaps these are not the right words to use, but subject of article must have some colourable basis for inclusion (have done or been involved in something of marginal significance, or have a status of at least marginal significance ) 1122:, then that statement is only verifiable by authority if there exists a reputable source to back me up. It is not enough to just go to the site and see if it exists, because that would be verifiability by experiment. Just my two cents. 326:

This is subjective, of course, but at some point I think it's reasonable to say "nobody on Earth is going to be remotely interested in this" about some articles and just get rid of them. My standards are pretty low in this regard (I wrote

1317:

I'm not arguing that there are legitimate candidates for deletion, but the parameters Jimbo has favored seem like a reasonable check to me. Organize, categorize, move -- or better yet, improve -- to your heart's content. Or list it on

1281:

Well said. I'd like to add that "vanity pages" is a problematic criteria. It's almost never clear-cut whether or not a page is actually a vanity page, and I have seen some definitively non-vanity pages called vanity by many people.

96:

Really you should have asked the question about "fame" and the question about "importance" separately. They are different concepts, and it is certainly not the case that someone who agrees about one will agree about the other. --

2211:

death wasn't important????? That's sick. I knew this girl. Maybe not as well as I should, but I knew her and my family knew her. For someone to say a little girl's death by her own hand isn't important is just sick and twisted.

1836:

313:

09:06, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) & concur with Stewart Adcock; also, "important" may be to a small community, but should not be to a trivially small community (e.g. being the best swimmer in your high school shouldn't get you into

241:- but see my NO vote as well! This vote is a token of expression of concern for the real issues that users in favor of this rule are raising, while my no vote below is an expression of where I think the real solution lies. 1674:

was deleted because its a new word, well, I'm seeing it appear more often now, and 10 games are on poll to become the first retail Adult Only rated games because of this words invention. But nope, its new, so out it goes.

1094:

each. Each article is trivially verifiable by anyone who can walk down the street or was around for the bits of history described. Do they belong in the Encyclopedia, in general? If not, what threshold gets them removed?

1669:

What does it matter what the famouness of an article, or what you believe the usfulness is. There will be someone that will want to know about it, and thats what matters. Its an encyclopedia, a library of all knowledge.

624:

and makes the data obtained in the poll useless, it is, by a process of elimination, the best choice. Not only should "fame" and "importance" not be a necessary or sufficient condition for article deletion, but they

945:

Late to the discussion, but important to me: Criteria other than "notability" are more pertinent, more objective, and more clearly-defined. A truly non-notable entry will necessarily fail one or more of those other

2068:

Those added links could, and would, be deleted, of course. Certainly anything deleted should have no links to it (with the exception of pure vandalism). But not everything with no links to it should be deleted.

864:

reputation, when no one seems to be criticizing us on these grounds? The site is only getting more popular and more reputable with time, and we can only benefit by expanding our knowledge in every direction. See

1106:

way for someone to verify it is to replicate the research. The reason I say 'worse in a way' is just that the example doesn't seem to address any actual deletion controversies that we're ever likely to have.

1041:

Knowledge (XXG) article? It's completely verifiable: The newspaper is on file at the local library, and the police records are available. Yet (IMHO) it would be worse than pointless to include such an article.

1948:

A (hypothetical) review or summary of an unpublished novel or set of poems would be deleted. If said novel could not be accessed by any users here, why would they have interest in reading a review about it?

2013:

On the other hand, the danger to the latter idea is that people might write bots to break the charts, and put a page in which they have personal investment up to #1. Still a cool idea, aside from that flaw.

1656:

I don't find that to be remotely accurate, but I don't think this is going anywhere, so let's agree to disagree, shall we? I agree w Optim above, so perhaps his explanation is more useful to you than mine.

919:

02:12, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC) Disinterested standard: would someone with no personal interest in the success/failure of the idea, organization or person bother to write about it. If yes, then keep. If no, then

1595:

I'm not sure what the advantage would be in deleting something that is simply uninteresting to many people. If it is interesting to some people, or potentially interesting to even one, why not keep it?

2139: 1303:

suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia that purports to want to present all knowledge. And if you can't force the volunteers to focus on "serious subjects", why alienate them by deleting what they

1021:

Knowledge (XXG)? I sure hope not. Obviously, this is an extreme case. My point is that we must think very carefully before we make any blanket statements about what should or should not be included. -

519:

18:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Every subject should have some notability/significance, and that reason should be mentioned. We don't need to lay the bar high, but we should not completely remove it either.

2022:

I use Random Page semi-frequently, and always as a method of finding articles that need help. So if anything, I'd want it to aim at neglected pages MORE effectively, not less. Just my two cents,

1980:

How do you decide that the few hundred mathematicians who care about Sedenions are more important than the few thousand high school students and alumni who care about any given high school band?

2006:

That could be an alternative weight, except for (as you said) the fact that edit wars would bias the results. So perhaps it should be number of editors in the past XXX, not number of changes.

881:

informative, then it should remain online. After all, encyclopedias impose a threshold of fame primarily because of space limitations. Our limitations are very different on Knowledge (XXG).

2153:

Other cases are much harder. One came up recently of a headteacher where there is at least some assertion of notability. But is it genuinely verifiable, other than by original research?

1398:

or should be. The primary purpose of this poll is so that when someone uses this arguement they can be pointed at this page and see what the majority of wikipedians believe at that time. --

473:

In particular, there should be a need to have done something that is verifiable, preferably significant (by some measure: peer judgment, public acclaim, historic record...) and most of all

956: 813:

Until the cost of storage becomes prohibitive, everything anyone has reasonably considered worth writing about should be left in, unless an overwhelming majority of users reject it. :

1929:

would stay. They're certainly not famous, and I'm not aware of any practical use for them (though I'm sure there is, somewhere) but they are of definite interest to mathematicians.

1432:

I'm certainly willing to listen to arguments as to why it would be a Good Thing to exclude information from our encyclopaedia on topics that are not well known. As I say, if there

21: 1990:

Your last paragraph is an interesting idea. How about frequency of edit? Except for edit conflicts, the pages most often edited are (IMHO) usually the best. OTOH, some people use

491:

yes, but only insomuch as is necessary for an article to be edited by the general user population. wikipedia is not paper, but non-verifiability due to obscurity is unacceptable.

2174:

that cannot be verified as fact (rather than as being the well-argued opinion of one individual) by one reasonably well versed in the subject, is functionally unverifiable. -

2135:) are, it seems to me, attempts to come up with some reasonably objective metrics by which to express the likely present and future verifiability of a subject and its coverage. 965:, a worm that causes a fish disease? Minor medieval kings and authors whose books are no longer read? All valid subjects for an encyclopedia; very little fame or importance. 1733:(academic journal archive), the catalogs of the LOC and COPAC, and numerous full-text book archives. If something is famous it invariably shows up in one of these sources. -- 414:

argument, the issue is usability, not storage space. It's hard enough already to sort the wheat from the chaff. Authors and editors have to exercise some judgement. Fame is

1082:

proves your point. The contents of a webpage are entirely verifiable, either directly or through something like the Web archive. So should an article on the page be kept? -

1449:

published (and they probably have been). Anything which would be in any of those encyclopedias is fair game. I oppose high schools, for example, because I doubt even an

705: 342:

include, for example, serial killers but only a cursory mention of their victims. Otherwise, in the worst case, we would have to begin to write articles equivalent to

2157:

is a favourite of mine: there are several primary sources (friends, contemporaries, scientific records of the Royal Society) many of which were gathered together by

1033:

because there's a scientific paper about it, so we can say that thus-and-such Cambridge physicist proposed such-and-so theory, blah blah blah. And that's valuable.

1044:

Please understand that I generally agree with you -- many disputes about inclusion could be resolved simply by testing verifiablity. But, as you know, diskspace in

2184: 1298:

Of course we should have comprehensive and serious coverage of mathematics and geography and Marilyn Monroe and etc. ad nauseam, and if the trivial articles were

906:

01:25, 2004 May 14 (UTC): Lots of nice things can be written about things that not a lot of people know or care about, it's not like we're running out of paper.

1016:

Jimbo, I agree with you that there are many non-famous items that do belong in Knowledge (XXG), but there are also many verifiable and NPOV-able items that do

793:

I vote No. Articles about my cat should be excluded not because of fame or importance reasons, but because of frivolity reasons. I think we can draw the line.

620:

This has to be one of the most confusing polls ever. Even though the existence of this option (Yes and No) violates the mutual exclusivity requirement of good

1648:

Yes, the community of editors and readers. We are among those we are here to serve and our opinion is representative of those who do not wish to be heard. -

1758:. That she's not famous isn't the problem; it's that I simply don't see why she's relevant enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia (paper or not). - 1379:

Is this poll being used an aid to achieving consensus? Or is it just an attempt to suppress any attempt at reaching a consensus by sheer weight of numbers?

1970:

Would it be possible to weight the Random Page function according to frequency of visit, so that obscure pages would come up proportionately less often?

1889:

I staunchly disagree, for the same reasons as others have given, with the "fame criterion" for deletion. Importance is almost impossible to define. Are

56:

Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the

708:

roughly suggests to me that one out of a thousand individuals are ultimately deserving of inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). That sounds about right to me.

1322:

for someone else to do. But if it was important enough for someone to write, it may well be important enough for someone to read, don't you think?

1461:

I think that although lack of fame and importance of an article should be A reason to delete it, it should never be THE ONLY reason to delete it. -

826:

No. Unless there is some reason for the deletion of the articles (eg. lack of space on the server) I do not see why the articles should be deleted.

1133: 529:. If you cannot find the article you are looking for because there is too much detail, then Knowledge (XXG) will have failed as an encyclopedia. 1208:

State in time of war or armed rebellion. Is this what you had in mind or do you imagine that the writ og the US constitution runs everywhere?

1155:

of Knowledge (XXG) articles based on this information. The vast majority of these articles, in my opinion, do not belong in Knowledge (XXG).

1945:

would be deleted. Not because it was written by its subject, but because there is very little general interest in the material on the page.

1239:

front door without my permission). As much as we like to look at Knowledge (XXG) as "public space" it is not. It has a specific purpose, and

2233: 2195: 2118: 2038: 1984: 1878: 1858: 1828: 1215:

I happen to know Scifiter X is brilliant, first hand (just a little prone to accidental electrocution when repairing household appliances).

1185: 1159: 1062: 991: 978: 952: 942: 903: 891: 549: 57: 2146:

achieve fame or cult status and are covered much more widely of course, and they are rightly included. Others are already famous, such as

800:

No, if it is NPOV, verifiable, and not original research, keep it. No harm is done, and who knows what it's importance to someone may be.

17: 2010:

might be interesting. Of course, it would include only the encyclopedic subject pages, not metadiscussion pages like VfD or User Pages.

1503:

to the talk page until someone can verify it. IMO, it's better to risk having no information at all than to have incorrect information.

2225: 1850: 1340:

Echo that. It's even gotten to the point where genuine stubs of important info are being deleted because they aren't good enough yet!

392:

Fame and importance means that it has to have relevance and is interesting to the reader _not in the way a good novel is interesting_.

284:, perhaps a better stating of the criterea, but some type of "importance" or "significance" is needed to be a Knowledge (XXG) article. 1540: 470:

overrun with it, and there are ways to self-promote that don't obviously violate the "original research" or "verifiability" clauses.

448: 68: 2051:

Judging whether an article should stay or be deleted could be done by the number of links to the article. Any comments on this?

525:

16:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) Notable and interesting should be the criteria. Some disambiguation lists are already too long such as

2248: 1383: 1994:

to find things that need editing -- maybe we should ask the opinion of the Wikipedians that use it a lot? Because I don't! --

1711:

Much of the time, I don't know enough about a subject to say whether or not it's famous. For example, take the disputes over

1365: 484:

I find it reasonable that a certain level of significance on some level should be reached to be included in a reference work.

218:- though it should not, of course, be the only criterion. If there are other reasons to delete as well, that would be better. 1587:

of them, not only one or two. We cannot decide whether an article should deleted or not, if we don't ask the readers first.

320:

03:27, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) - it's not a blanket thing, of course, there are individual situations which need to be considered.

2175: 1956:

Likewise, these three examples are for subjects which new users, during a first visit to Knowledge (XXG), would be highly

671:

09:40, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC) - "me too!"... really tho, you can see a debate on this on my user talk. deletionism is anti-wiki

1865:

Important in a moral sense, certainly. Important to her family, absolutely. But important in the sense of "belongs in an

959:

is "famous" or "important" in the English-speaking world; he is nevertheless remembered. What do these criteria do for

434:

quality be the sole determination for inclusion in an encyclopedia, there is a very real need for a standard of general

2191: 2088: 1101:

This example is better in a way and worse in a way, but even so, 'fame' is not what we're after. The information is

1539:

proof. But an article about a topic which is completely non-verifiable has no place in Knowledge (XXG). See also

1115: 820:

No. There are absurd examples of articles that really are too unimportant, but we don't need a guideline for that.

621: 1499: 840: 1779: 900:

00:51, 2 May 2004 (EET): Althouhgh I agree that this question is misplaced or -phrased, I'll much rather say no.

252:. Crap not promptly removed remains forever (and in practice gets wired into honest articles, until pages like 743: 2229: 1854: 2221: 2070: 1846: 1755: 1544: 1504: 1283: 739: 662: 606:

11:41, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC): I have been thinking along similar routes, although my solution would be to allow

1932: 1897: 1816:

judgement about it being silly - no-one else's) will be often thought of but seldom actually completed. --

916: 1935:

would stay. It contains information on the strategy and development of a somewhat well-known card game.

1923:

should be the metric of what stays and what goes. For examples of how such a criterion would be applied:

843:. We can return to this debate when storage capacity becomes a technical problem -- hopefully, never. -- 533: 209: 1182: 380: 163: 125: 27: 187: 49: 41: 2015: 1973: 1243:

activities on Knowledge (XXG) are subject to evaluation based on if and how they serve that purpose. -

961: 814: 631: 249: 111: 1824:

It would also be unverifiable. We have all the policy we need to deal with this. No More Rulecruft.

492: 135: 1437: 1388: 1345: 1323: 1123: 1095: 1070: 927: 721: 584:

rmation as possible is good. Some information not currently important may become so -- your local

122: 98: 2109:

23:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC), who is currently outlining his arguments, which point in this direction

1942: 1671: 244: 184: 1682:

Of course, pages about a nobody that was made by them should be restricted to their user lookup.

1597: 1266: 1209: 933: 801: 648: 546: 508: 389: 323: 287: 276: 253: 227: 443:

They provide explanation, but also context for a subject to which the general public refers. ((

2115: 2023: 1995: 1874: 1825: 1712: 1083: 844: 732: 516: 456: 427: 270: 173: 1360: 678:

17:11, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC) - too much material about too much is not really that bad, methinks

2060: 1900:. Ambition is a game of rapidly-increasing popularity, but certainly not yet canonical like 1220: 1107: 1034: 988: 975: 687: 644: 377: 238: 160: 2132: 2128: 2124: 1808:

values the subject of the article that should be all that's needed. Silly articles such as

1265:

That would appear to require considerable original research, I, for one, am not up for it.

2092: 1901: 969: 870: 462: 328: 221: 148: 759:

No, clear-cut. For starters, there are six billion people on this world of mine... er...

810:, poor and unsuitable metrics. (but see my Superposition of Yes and No response above). 2158: 1991: 1890: 1658: 1641: 1620: 1520: 1488: 1341: 1334: 1066: 923: 888: 794: 787: 747: 711: 701: 668: 593:

that's the kind of glorious archive that only a distributed encyclopedia can provide.

478: 140: 2167: 2242: 2147: 1702:, non-famousness is a fine reason to delete something, since it's not encyclopedic. 1686: 1567: 1470: 1259: 939: 882: 827: 681: 504: 386: 371: 359: 281: 233: 2154: 2035: 1870: 1817: 1790: 1759: 1649: 1631: 1611: 1455: 1244: 1054: 1022: 754: 690:

11:30, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC) - Who gets to decide what is famous and significant? The

522: 407: 353: 347: 334: 304: 264: 199: 179: 1312:

knowledge that might otherwise be of benefit or importance to someone, somewhere?

2099: 2057: 1981: 1776: 1770: 1721: 1462: 1156: 1130: 949: 909: 897: 539: 485: 310: 297: 215: 204: 117: 2143: 2106: 1767: 1734: 1588: 1399: 1010: 1006: 832: 675: 526: 421: 395: 365: 317: 193: 155: 145: 130: 89: 78:

Should lack of fame or importance be a legitimate reason to delete an article?

1963:

An interesting point was raised earlier regarding the Random Page function:

1926: 776: 603: 498: 168: 850:

No. Extraneous information does no harm, even if it's trivial. If people

1916:

or otherwise try to establish her here. Who else is interested in my cat?

2170:, and to make it possible to assess whether the point of view is neutral. 1543:. It's basically the same policy, except at an article at a time level. 875: 821: 401: 1028:

This example proves my point, though, doesn't it? It isn't the lack of

1913: 1319: 807: 561: 1129:

The Internet Archive is an authority on the history of many websites.

1896:

I've been in several deletion debates, most regarding the card game

994:

It is unethical to censor information based on subjective criteria.

257:

subjective (bar those wikipedians who receive editing instructions

190:— but agreed with Secretlondon in that this needs some quantifying. 2187: 1905: 1773: 1730: 2205:

Note: The following text was found below a redirect to this page:

1640:

No, rather we should consider those whom we are here to serve ;)

1630:

so... we should listen to those who choose not to be heard? ;P -

1364:

disputes by polls has reached the limit of absurdity here. From

1258:

WE MUST HAVE AN ARTICLE ON EACH AND EVERY ANT IN MY ANT FARM! -

772: 452: 2214:

There is no question whether Sarah Marple Cantrell's death was

1839:

There is no question whether Sarah Marple Cantrell's death was

731:

See Martin's suggestions below for a more sensible approach. --

589: 36: 839:

Absolutely not. The key to Knowledge (XXG)'s proper scope is

767:? The internet is all about mischief. They wanted to name it 2218:

And the fact that people don't think so makes me very sad.

1843:

And the fact that people don't think so makes me very sad.

715:

the right to make it so others can't speak their minds. See

746:

to "famous" and "important", which are heavily subjective.

383:

10:18, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) - broadly agree with Secret, Jimbo

74:

This page contains a discussion of the following question:

698:

don't think they are important they will abuse that power.

1751:

their actual name recognition among the general public.

303:

Actually, see Martin's "No" vote and Tuf Kat's Why post.

1893:

important, or just nifty? They certainly aren't famous.

1799:

Surely that's part of the point though isn't it? I mean

957:

Alexis-Vincent-Charles Berbiguier de Terre-Neuve du Thym

936:

10:23, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC) Such criteria are too subjective

2150:. Few seriously dispute the inclusion of these people. 451:

or remove the most egregious stuff (linking himself to

424:

Encyclopedias are not places to list every human being.

294:

should be enough to counteract such a deletion policy.

706:

Knowledge (XXG):Criteria for inclusion of biographies

48:

This page is currently inactive and is retained for

854:the trivial information here, it's because they're 1766:She is important. What makes you think she isn't? 865: 580:standards. I also definitely feel that acquiring 1885:My opinion: General interest should be the metric 716: 441:And what is an encyclopedia if not authoritative? 344:List of couch potatoes who died peacefully in bed 726: 230:- but not on a simple Google hit count, please. 224:- with common-sense (sic) applied to each case 955:: It would be hard to say, for example, that 657: 71:for more general deletion policy discussion. 8: 2140:unsuccessful candidates for political office 1754:This is the issue I have with an entry like 780: 610:articles to be marked, rather than mark all 475:not mere self-promotion or original research 88:or require some level of fame/importance. -- 2123:The criteria currently cited on VfDs (e.g. 1789:Why is she important? I just don't see it. 1120:www.someirrelevantwebsite.com is a website. 1919:Instead, I submit the humble opinion that 1384:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Inclusion of content 1451:Encyclopedia of education in XXX country 568:(earlier note:) I definitely agree that 28:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Fame and importance 1382:What we should do is move this page to 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Historical archive 2078:Comments and another suggested metric 1541:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view 1217:Really the wrong guy to be correcting 261:). Knowledge (XXG) is not Angelfire. 7: 449:Knowledge (XXG):No original research 337:In my opinion, a person has to have 212:- if not it would be unleashing hell 1960:likely to enter as search queries. 968:Both entirely subjective terms. -- 1366:Knowledge (XXG):Polling guidelines 35: 590:international talk-show-host star 1810:every single ant in the ant farm 40: 981:I surely don't want to include 665:- Knowledge (XXG) is not paper. 368:20:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) - Yes. 362:13:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) - Yes. 2039:17:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC) 992:03:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 866:#Discussion of Extraneous's no 69:Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy 1: 2196:11:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 2119:02:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC) 2087:of the more obscure items in 1985:21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 1829:01:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC) 1579:We should get the opinion of 1293:Discussion of Extraneous's no 1160:20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 1134:20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 1116:www.someirrelevantwebsite.com 1063:Discussion of Extraneous's no 717:#Discussion of ScifiterX's no 572:of the wikipedia should have 445:Ex. The Consequence of Agenda 2234:02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2144:Some unsuccessful candidates 1859:03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 1200:Discussion of ScifiterX's no 779:22:49, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC) See 727:#Discussion of JamesDay's no 412:Knowledge (XXG) is not paper 2089:list of mathematical topics 1879:19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 1254:Discussion of JamesDay's no 1061:interested in it. See also 979:18:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC) 725:driving this no vote. See 556:Superposition of yes and no 550:01:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 430:While I don't believe that 2265: 1458:04:42, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC) 1053:sense of prioritization? - 753:This reflects my opinion. 622:questionnaire construction 2063:03:41, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC) 2018:03:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1998:06:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1976:23:48, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1820:13:19, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1762:08:41, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1661:01:17, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1644:21:47, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1614:18:18, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) 1591:17:03, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) 1570:22:38, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) 1473:20:03, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) 1465:20:03, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) 1436:any such arguments... -- 1414:anywhere. Let's at least 1391:01:07, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) 1186:12:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 1126:30 June 2005 01:31 (UTC) 1098:19:10, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC) 1057:16:52, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1025:18:34, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC) 658:#Discussion of Jimbo's no 495:23:18, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC) 488:05:17, May 10, 2004 (UTC) 404:20:45, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC) 92:20:19, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC) 2073:00:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1724:05:32, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1689:00:00, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1652:21:52, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1634:21:42, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1600:05:37, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1547:15:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1523:14:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1507:14:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1498:I can't agree here, and 1491:13:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1440:04:13, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) 1402:01:48, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) 1337:21:50, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1326:21:33, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1269:05:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1247:03:10, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) 1223:20:30, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC) 1212:15:22, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC) 1110:18:56, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1037:18:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1013:19:07, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC) 999:Discussion of Jimbo's no 847:05:59, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) 817:00:24, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) 804:05:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) 797:01:03, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) 790:03:21, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) 781:#Discussion of Itai's no 735:18:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) 634:09:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) 588:may become mayor, or an 564:00:01, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC) 513:23:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) 481:14:34, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC) 398:21:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) 374:18:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) 350:13:13, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) 307:00:10, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC) 196:23:21, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) 2163:Early Science at Oxford 2026:20:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1793:20:50, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1782:19:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1742:Fame no, importance yes 1737:18:25, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1623:03:38, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1500:wikipedia:verifiability 1348:03:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) 1286:22:54, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1274:Discussion of Itai's no 1086:17:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1073:03:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) 1055:Rholton (aka Anthropos) 972:5 July 2005 12:16 (UTC) 953:19:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC) 943:03:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC) 904:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 892:18:53, 1 May 2004 (UTC) 885:07:27, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) 859:than the content -- so 750:23:29, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 542:8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC) 536:5 July 2005 00:51 (UTC) 501:00:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) 300:13:59, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) 101:03:45, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) 2249:Inactive project pages 1009:: I agree with Jimbo. 930:See votes 1, 6 and 23. 755:SweetLittleFluffyThing 459:08:09, 5 March, 2004)) 418:rule of thumb to help. 290:- Yes, although being 1756:Sarah Marple-Cantrell 1260:Arthur George Carrick 1226:Freedom of speech is 1078:I think it very much 744:wikipedia:informative 331::) but they do exist. 1933:Ambition (card game) 1574:We serve the readers 962:Myxobolus cerebralis 836:article should stay. 740:wikipedia:verifiable 1693:Spirit vs. practice 1685:Just my 2 dollars - 1665:Deletion in general 1992:Special:Randompage 1869:"? Certainly not. 1605:We ARE the readers 1292: 1273: 1253: 1199: 998: 692:Deletionist Armada 649:Qubit Field Theory 254:List of historians 2236: 2224:comment added by 1861: 1849:comment added by 1713:Wilfredo G. Santa 1519:think otherwise. 1118:in which I state 917:Stirling Newberry 582:as much NPOV info 511: 65: 64: 26:(Redirected from 22:Policy/Notability 2256: 2219: 2179: 2071:Anthony DiPierro 1921:general interest 1844: 1610:READERS. (Us) - 1545:Anthony DiPierro 1505:Anthony DiPierro 1284:Anthony DiPierro 1183:DanielCristofani 876:Lirath Q. Pynnor 765:what am I saying 663:Anthony DiPierro 509: 410:: To answer the 61: 44: 37: 31: 2264: 2263: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2239: 2238: 2186: 2177: 2080: 2049: 1887: 1744: 1695: 1667: 1607: 1576: 1479: 1357: 1295: 1276: 1256: 1202: 1001: 950:Smerdis of Tlön 676:denny vrandečić 641: 632:mydogategodshat 586:city councilman 558: 465:Whether or not 396:BCorr ? Брайен 329:Sidehill Gouger 250:Finlay McWalter 112:Daniel C. Boyer 108: 85: 55: 33: 32: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 2262: 2260: 2252: 2251: 2241: 2240: 2208: 2207: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2183: 2171: 2159:Robert Gunther 2151: 2136: 2079: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2065: 2064: 2056:easy to fake. 2048: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2028: 2027: 1988: 1987: 1891:sigma-algebras 1886: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1834: 1832: 1831: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1784: 1783: 1743: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1694: 1691: 1666: 1663: 1654: 1653: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1625: 1624: 1606: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1575: 1572: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1493: 1492: 1478: 1475: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1377: 1376: 1356: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1338: 1328: 1327: 1314: 1313: 1294: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1275: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1255: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1224: 1213: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1042: 1014: 1000: 997: 996: 995: 986: 973: 966: 947: 937: 931: 921: 914: 907: 901: 895: 886: 878: 873: 868: 848: 837: 830: 824: 818: 811: 805: 798: 791: 783: 757: 751: 736: 729: 719: 709: 699: 685: 679: 672: 666: 660: 640: 637: 636: 635: 618: 617: 616: 566: 565: 557: 554: 553: 552: 543: 537: 534:Idont Havaname 530: 520: 514: 502: 496: 489: 482: 471: 460: 425: 419: 405: 399: 393: 384: 375: 369: 363: 357: 351: 332: 321: 315: 308: 301: 295: 288:Stewart Adcock 285: 279: 274: 268: 262: 247: 242: 236: 231: 225: 219: 213: 207: 202: 197: 191: 182: 177: 171: 166: 158: 153: 143: 138: 133: 128: 120: 115: 107: 104: 103: 102: 84: 81: 63: 62: 54: 45: 34: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2261: 2250: 2247: 2246: 2244: 2237: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2226:70.251.81.233 2223: 2217: 2212: 2206: 2203: 2202: 2197: 2194: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2172: 2169: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2149: 2148:H. Ross Perot 2145: 2141: 2137: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2117: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2108: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2095: 2094: 2090: 2084: 2077: 2072: 2067: 2066: 2062: 2059: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2046: 2040: 2037: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2017: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1997: 1993: 1986: 1983: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1975: 1971: 1968: 1964: 1961: 1959: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1934: 1930: 1928: 1924: 1922: 1917: 1915: 1909: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1894: 1892: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1851:70.251.81.233 1848: 1842: 1837: 1830: 1827: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1802: 1792: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1781: 1778: 1775: 1772: 1769: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1761: 1757: 1752: 1748: 1741: 1736: 1732: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1723: 1718: 1714: 1709: 1707: 1706: 1701: 1700: 1692: 1690: 1688: 1683: 1680: 1676: 1673: 1664: 1662: 1660: 1651: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1643: 1633: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1622: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1613: 1604: 1599: 1598:Mark Richards 1594: 1593: 1592: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1573: 1571: 1569: 1563: 1559: 1546: 1542: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1522: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1506: 1501: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1490: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1476: 1474: 1472: 1466: 1464: 1459: 1457: 1452: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1417: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1401: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1390: 1385: 1380: 1375: 1374:most support. 1371: 1370: 1369: 1367: 1362: 1354: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1301: 1297: 1296: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1268: 1267:Mark Richards 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1229: 1225: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1211: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1187: 1184: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1161: 1158: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1135: 1132: 1128: 1127: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1112: 1111: 1109: 1104: 1100: 1099: 1097: 1092: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1059: 1058: 1056: 1052: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1038: 1036: 1031: 1027: 1026: 1024: 1019: 1015: 1012: 1008: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 993: 990: 987: 984: 980: 977: 974: 971: 967: 964: 963: 958: 954: 951: 948: 944: 941: 938: 935: 934:Eclecticology 932: 929: 925: 922: 918: 915: 911: 908: 905: 902: 899: 896: 893: 890: 887: 884: 879: 877: 874: 872: 869: 867: 862: 857: 853: 849: 846: 842: 841:Verifiability 838: 834: 831: 829: 825: 823: 819: 816: 812: 809: 806: 803: 802:Mark Richards 799: 796: 792: 789: 784: 782: 778: 774: 770: 766: 762: 758: 756: 752: 749: 745: 741: 737: 734: 730: 728: 723: 720: 718: 713: 710: 707: 703: 700: 697: 693: 689: 686: 683: 680: 677: 673: 670: 667: 664: 661: 659: 654: 650: 646: 643: 642: 638: 633: 628: 623: 619: 613: 609: 605: 602: 601: 599: 596: 595: 594: 591: 587: 583: 579: 575: 571: 563: 560: 559: 555: 551: 548: 547:Elysianfields 544: 541: 538: 535: 531: 528: 524: 521: 518: 515: 512: 506: 503: 500: 497: 494: 490: 487: 483: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 461: 458: 454: 450: 446: 442: 437: 433: 429: 426: 423: 420: 417: 413: 409: 406: 403: 400: 397: 394: 391: 388: 385: 382: 379: 376: 373: 370: 367: 364: 361: 358: 355: 352: 349: 345: 340: 336: 333: 330: 325: 322: 319: 316: 312: 309: 306: 302: 299: 296: 293: 289: 286: 283: 280: 278: 275: 272: 269: 266: 263: 260: 255: 251: 248: 246: 243: 240: 237: 235: 232: 229: 226: 223: 220: 217: 214: 211: 208: 206: 203: 201: 198: 195: 192: 189: 186: 183: 181: 178: 175: 172: 170: 167: 165: 162: 159: 157: 154: 152: 151: 147: 144: 142: 139: 137: 134: 132: 129: 127: 124: 121: 119: 116: 113: 110: 109: 105: 100: 95: 94: 93: 91: 83:Clarification 82: 80: 79: 75: 72: 70: 59: 53: 51: 46: 43: 39: 38: 29: 23: 19: 2215: 2213: 2209: 2204: 2190: 2162: 2155:Robert Hooke 2116:Trollderella 2104: 2097: 2096: 2085: 2081: 2050: 2024:Jwrosenzweig 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996:Toby Bartels 1989: 1972: 1969: 1965: 1962: 1957: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943:John Highway 1941: 1937: 1931: 1925: 1920: 1918: 1910: 1895: 1888: 1867:encyclopedia 1866: 1840: 1838: 1833: 1826:Trollderella 1813: 1809: 1805: 1800: 1798: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1716: 1710: 1704: 1703: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1684: 1681: 1677: 1672:killographic 1668: 1655: 1639: 1608: 1584: 1583:readers, or 1580: 1577: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1480: 1467: 1460: 1450: 1447: 1433: 1415: 1381: 1378: 1372: 1359:Why is this 1358: 1309: 1304: 1299: 1257: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1227: 1216: 1119: 1102: 1084:Andre Engels 1079: 1050: 1045: 1029: 1017: 982: 960: 860: 855: 851: 845:Toby Bartels 768: 764: 760: 733:Michael Snow 695: 691: 652: 626: 611: 607: 597: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 567: 517:Andre Engels 474: 466: 457:PilotPrecise 444: 440: 436:significance 435: 431: 428:PilotPrecise 415: 411: 343: 338: 291: 271:Jwrosenzweig 259:de profundis 258: 174:Secretlondon 149: 86: 77: 76: 73: 66: 58:village pump 47: 2220:—Preceding 2100:Santa Claus 2016:Mike Church 1974:Mike Church 1845:—Preceding 1705:In practice 1342:··gracefool 1333:Brilliant. 1310:eliminating 1221:Lizard King 1108:Jimbo Wales 1067:··gracefool 1035:Jimbo Wales 989:noösfractal 976:IJzeren Jan 924:··gracefool 688:Lizard King 645:Jimbo Wales 314:wikipedia). 292:interesting 239:Jimbo Wales 2216:important. 2168:verifiable 2093:Isomorphic 1841:important. 1806:one person 1477:My opinion 1300:preventing 1235:poster on 1007:User:Optim 983:everything 970:Necrothesp 871:Ryan_Cable 598:Suggestion 578:importance 527:John Smith 463:Isomorphic 387:— Sverdrup 222:Tompagenet 161:Maximus Re 52:reference. 50:historical 2180:you know? 2176:Just zis 1927:Sedenions 1699:In theory 1659:Sam Spade 1642:Sam Spade 1521:ShaneKing 1489:ShaneKing 1438:Oliver P. 1389:Oliver P. 1335:Sam Spade 1324:Catherine 1245:Anthropos 1124:Hesperian 1023:Anthropos 946:criteria. 889:Frazzydee 795:Philwelch 788:ShaneKing 738:I prefer 712:ScifiterX 702:Seth Ilys 570:some view 493:Badanedwa 479:The Anome 298:-- uriber 141:Tempshill 136:Archivist 99:Oliver P. 2243:Category 2222:unsigned 1898:Ambition 1847:unsigned 1687:Fizscy46 1568:Onebyone 1471:Hemanshu 1096:Jamesday 940:Dystopos 883:Cribcage 828:Jeff8765 722:Jamesday 378:James F. 372:Axlrosen 360:Ruhrjung 282:Fuzheado 234:UtherSRG 123:Ashibaka 20:‎ | 2161:in his 2047:Linkage 2036:Sfnhltb 1914:April 1 1871:Bearcat 1818:wayland 1791:Bearcat 1760:Bearcat 1650:Texture 1632:Texture 1612:Texture 1456:Tuf-Kat 1419:Hurrah! 1416:pretend 1320:Cleanup 920:delete. 856:looking 769:Evilnel 523:Henrygb 408:Rossami 354:Oberiko 348:Nilmerg 335:Nilmerg 305:TMC1221 265:Texture 245:Wolfram 200:Tuf-Kat 180:Wiwaxia 2133:WP:WEB 2129:WP:NMG 2125:WP:BIO 2058:Angela 1982:Dfeuer 1902:Bridge 1722:Meelar 1463:Fennec 1231:place 1210:Bmills 1157:Dfeuer 1131:Dfeuer 913:could. 910:siroxo 898:Blades 815:robinp 748:Martin 627:cannot 612:unreal 540:Cedars 486:Satori 390:(talk) 381:(talk) 311:Jmabel 277:silsor 228:Bmills 216:Fennec 210:Muriel 205:Kokiri 118:Angela 2138:Take 2107:euyyn 1967:: --> 1906:poker 1735:Imran 1731:JSTOR 1589:Optim 1400:Imran 1011:Optim 477:. -- 422:moink 366:Iorsh 346:. - 324:Bryan 318:RickK 156:JeLuF 131:Imran 90:Imran 16:< 2230:talk 2192:AfD? 2178:Guy, 2131:and 2105:And 2098:And 1875:talk 1855:talk 1717:will 1621:Jack 1585:most 1361:poll 1355:Why? 1305:have 1233:your 1051:some 1030:fame 861:what 852:find 808:+sj+ 777:Itai 773:Borg 761:ours 742:and 696:they 669:Jack 653:this 608:real 604:Itai 576:and 574:fame 562:+sj+ 510:T@lk 499:Yath 453:2004 339:done 194:Sean 185:Dark 169:Dori 67:See 2188:(W) 1904:or 1581:all 1434:are 1241:all 1228:not 1103:not 1080:dis 1046:not 1018:not 822:DrZ 775:. - 505:JFW 432:any 402:Wik 188:elf 146:Jia 106:Yes 2245:: 2232:) 2127:, 2091:. 1958:un 1877:) 1857:) 1814:my 1368:: 1237:my 1065:. 833:AY 682:tb 674:-- 639:No 545:-- 532:-- 507:| 467:we 150:ng 2228:( 2182:/ 2061:. 1873:( 1853:( 1812:( 1801:I 1780:m 1777:i 1774:t 1771:p 1768:O 1346:☺ 1344:| 1071:☺ 1069:| 928:☺ 926:| 416:a 164:x 126:✎ 60:. 30:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Fame and importance - Knowledge (XXG)

Index