Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I encourage allowing for some other options:

Should notability be renamed Wikipedia:Inclusion guideline?

Should notability be renamed Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria?

Should notability be renamed Wikipedia:Wikipedic?

Should notability be marked as humorous?

Should notability be marked as failed?

Should notability be marked as an essay?

Should notability be marked as historical?

Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll add in possible renamings, although I think that the others wouldn't be appropriate unless there is established consensus against notability's status as a guideline. -

talk) 21:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

See for example Category:Wikipedians against notability to see how much consensus there is against it. Even if say 100 editors showed up and said to support here, it would still reflect that nearly twice that number have stated opposition elsewhere. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Also see User talk:A Nobody#Users against notability for a discussion about why the # of users in that category may or may not be meaningful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to solicit a little more feedback. The proposals should reflect a little bit more vetting before we put them to a wider audience. Specifically, I think the past RFC showed there is a consensus to change (not remove) WP:N, but it's kind of trite to ask this question without getting into a little bit more about how. It's like asking "who wants food?" Randomran (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(refactored out)

Maybe you should assume good faith instead of assuming that is what he meant. He very well could have meant the nature of the articles (inward looking, trivial, and comprised almost entirely from original research) rather than the nature of the content. But I'm sure you don't need to worry about that, you've got a window into his soul and his mental limitations. Protonk (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(refactored out)

talk) 00:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who that sort of logic works on.

Assume good faith. Not a suggestion. A behavioral guideline. When someone says "Support if you believe that Wikipedia should remain an Encyclopedia, not a Wookieepedia." It is not in fact a proper response to say "this person is close minded and like every other person who thinks that wikipedia should be like Britannica" You would assume that they mean well and express a certain opinion out of general willingness to support the encyclopedia, not some malign intent or fundamental limitation. You have been reminded repeatedly of this. I see no reason why we should continue to have to remind you to behave in a collegial fashion. Protonk (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(refactored out)

talk) 00:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Since we don't agree on that summary, let's parse this out.

"I see this same argument, over and over, and over, a group of editors who have a 20th century notion of what an encyclopedia is." I struggle to read this as anything other than 'this argument is indistinguishable from others made by editors who'...before I was paraphrasing, now I will quote "have a 20th century notion of what an encyclopedia is." If that isn't an assumption on someone's mental framework or limitations, I'm not sure what is.

You continue, "[t]hey fondly remember the 24 box set of dusty encyclopedias in the basement, and think wikipedia should be the same way." If that isn't 'thinks wikipedia should be like britannica', I don't know what is.

The rest of your argument (that you don't see how improved coverage of pokemon diminishes coverage on binary stars or whatever) is admirable and persuasive. I'm not sure why you decided to make the first half of your argument. I'm also not sure why you argued that my summary wasn't basically accurate. This isn't really hard. Assume good faith. It isn't a suicide pact. But if someone makes a full throated defense of the guideline, you may not have sufficient cause to ascertain that his opposition to removing the guideline is made due to some imagined longing for a paper encyclopedia. It unfairly diminished your opponents. Protonk (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(refactored out)

• Wait, what. I'm not attempting to bait you. You came to ARS and did that merger. I even helped you originally because I figured you had consensus. I tried to keep the original complaint off AN/I. Then you accused me of conspiring with a banned user and asked an administrator to block you. It isn't like I'm moving to your areas of interest. This is a CENT listed request for comment on notability, a subject I am interested in. You and I are both free to talk here or there. If you can't handle that without accusing me of collusion or leaving wikipedia, that isn't my problem. Protonk (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

←If I could cut in for a moment -- I don't mean to take sides, but I really don't see any bad-faith assumption on Ikip's part, at least not until he made the baiting accusation towards the end there. There were perhaps some assumptions made there in his original comment, but they certainly weren't of the bad-faith type. Saying another person is being closed-minded isn't a bad-faith assumption, and neither is assuming something about their "mental framework". It's just an observation -- perhaps not a delicately-worded one, but a mere observation nonetheless. Ikip, it's understandable that emotions will show themselves in a debate like this, but it might be a good idea to word your arguments with words that are less likely to offend. And Protonk, I don't know how else to say this, but please try not to be so sensitive. This is a divisive subject, the arguments will get heated, so it's imperative to remember that arguments against your position aren't against you personally. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:24, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Equazcion, despite your vote on the main page (opposing my view), your advise here is fair and reasoned. You should mediate disputes.

talk) 01:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The question still hangs over this RFC, if you get rid of

WP:N that Wikipedia is so successful? --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to answer that question, but another editor said that I was not practicing good faith, but not suprisingly, gave your similar comments: "For some editors...this RFC is an opportunity to complain, demand that this guideline is watered downdown, or plead for an exemption for a class of articles or lists to be exempted in order to accomodate such topics as fringe science theories, fancruft, spam, hoaxes or topics that are not encyclopedic," a free pass. That is no surprise because that editor supports your viewpoints, and opposes mine, and we have a very negative history with each other. Wikipedia thrived before notability. Wikipedia has been healthy inspite of notability, not because of it. Unofficial data since October 2007 suggests that users' activity on Wikipedia has been dropping, and the Economist magazine blames, "self-appointed deletionist guardians" and a proliferation of rules.[1] Here is my response, tailored to sound like your response: "For some editors...notability is an opportunity to complain about other editors contributions, or exclude whole classes of articles or lists to accommodate a 20th century notion of what an encyclopedia is. Editors seem to fondly remember the 24 box set of dusty encyclopedias in the basement, and think wikipedia should be the same way. They think, every Pokeman character wasn't in encyclopedia book "P" when I was growing up, and it shouldn't be on Encyclopedia wikipedia either. They believe that an article on Pokeman character x somehow lessens (and I have never figured out how) the value of an article on quantum physics, or any article for that matter."

talk) 11:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you are trying to read my mind, then you have failed. Actually I think some Pokemon episodes are worthy of their own standalone article, e.g.
  WP:N? Do you have a better proposal? --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Non-notability is a better proposal. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Until specific changes have been outlined this section has been moved here from the main page, since no one knows what they'd be opposing yet. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:54, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, while I appreciate you moving the bickering to the talk page, I think this most recent move caused the main page section to be confusing. Please discuss changes to the layout of the main page and get a consensus here first.

talk) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no point in having a section to oppose "changing". "Changing" alone doesn't mean anything to anyone, and as editors have already pointed out, this section is not too useful until specific changes have been outlined. Until then it's just too vague. The only thing that should be discussed for now, as far as changes go, is what the changes should be. Then we can start finding out who supports or opposes those changes. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:19, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned a few specific changes already on the main RFC page. -

talk) 17:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Good, that's what the section should be for, voicing ideas. But unless the section is titled "support or oppose Drilnoth's changes", the section is again too vague. You're asking people to support or oppose any changes that are already posted there or happen to be posted in the future. It doesn't work. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:26, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Oppose changing

1. GRBerry 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Just "change" in general? What? I'm not just going to support some general change in the future. I want specifics before I support anything. Mr.Z-man 00:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah this section is sorta useless until specific proposed changes have actually been outlined. Maybe it should be removed? (just this little "oppose changing" section, is what I'm referring to)Equazcion •✗/C • 02:02, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

   Surely a "support changing" section is equally useless without any proposed changes. I mean, I've heard of skipping the discussion and going straight to a vote, but it seems in this case we skipped the proposal and went straight to a vote. Mr.Z-man 03:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

   Well, the "support changing" section is basically the "ideas for changing" section. I agree the sectioning decisions on this page were kinda ill-conceived. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:41, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

   My intention with this option was that some people may think that N should be changed, but the overall concept retained. Exact views on how it could be altered vary, and so can be discussed here on elsewhere if it is decided that same change is needed. -

   talk) 03:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

3. What is the alternative? Lax inclusion criteria that encourage
   spam? No thank you. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think a lack of alternatives is the achilles heal of this RFC. You could take out all the sections (oppose/support) on these grounds. I am restoring this section, on the grounds that some of the arguments put forward are powerful and relevant to the disucssions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate your tenacity. Repeating the same thing over and over tends to make an idea stick in readers minds. I hate to be repeat myself again, but #1, I have never seen a requirement in a RfC on a policy or guideline demanding an alternative. #2, wikipedia thrived before notability, and it can thrive after notability. There are hundreds of rules already, that all of the problems wikipedia faces, will be aptly covered without notability.
  talk) 12:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

1. This is a happy medium.
   talk) 10:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose - this section is so vague and woolly as to be useless. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Since we have two "polls" going (or discussion, or whatever), should the CENT title be more clear? We have two (largely) mutually exclusive options, eliminate WP:N and rename it. I think that the CENT listing should make that perfectly clear. We aren't "possibly reevaluating" WP:N. We are considering eliminating it entirely. "Possible reevaluation of Notability guidelines" doesn't cover that. for that matter, someone could consider placing {{

It's already been posted to VPP. I'm not sure about the disputed tag... maybe that should wait until there's a more serious body of opposition. The other advertising and name change, I think are good ideas. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:42, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think you can argue that
  WP:N is disputed until an alternative proposal is put forward.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Galvin, that is absolutely incorrect, as I have written before, Wikipedia thrived before Notability, and it will thrive after notability. No alternative is necessary. There is enough rules that Wikipedia would do just fine without Notability. I have never, ever seen this high bar interpretation of a dispute, that a "alternative proposal" is required on any other policy or guideline page, ever.

talk) 11:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that you can't disagree with something unless you have a better idea? Is that seriously how people think things work? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Gavin just didn't realize that some of the people opposing the guideline were actually in favor of retiring it altogether rather than merely replacing it. Let's not jump down his throat for it :) Equazcion •✗/C • 17:42, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this section here and copied the supportive arguments over to the "existence" section of the main page, along with renaming the "existence" section to include demotion/deletion, in accordance with the discussion below. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:52, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

This was probably a good idea. Thanks a lot. Randomran (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved from bottom of main page

Comment on the proposal: In my opinion, this is a

Well, I am okay with consolidating the essay and humrous headings, but if people dispute that it should exist, why not allow for some different specific options of possibly retaggings? Maybe some who support it, don't support as a guideline, but would support as an essay and vice-versa? To be perfectly open and honest, I whole-heartedly am convinced that "notability" as an inclusion guideline is outright morally wrong and yes, I really feel that strongly. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd support changing the "existence" question to "should

WP:N be demoted from guideline status". I don't think it would be a substantive change from the debate people are already having further upthread, and indeed some of the oppose votes have suggested demoting it to an essay or failed. There's no need for this discussion fork, and it appears User:Equazcion would agree. There might even be a need to remove it. But I leave that up to you and other editors to decide. Randomran (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be okay with combining these sections in that regards, i.e. making it about status rather than existence, because that seems to be what it is really about, i.e. should it be a guideline and not should it be kept or deleted. "Existence" strikes me as a "keep" or "delete" and it is not likely it would be deleted, but being marked historical or as an essay is realistic. But if someone does that, they should either move this discussion to a talk page or include a diff so people understand why such a change occurred. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for marking as an essay (or humorous essay)

The "humorous essay" and "essay" headings have been merged, as both are types of essays. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:56, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

More of an opinion piece by a segment of the community than reflective of some kind of real majority in practice. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability is such an over the top if not baffling and anti-wikipedic concept that it is really nothing more than an April Fools prank and should be acknowledged as such so as not to confuse anyone. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments against marking as an essay

Support marking as essay

1. --Support marking as a humorous essay. Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
2. --Support marking as a historical/humorous essay to underscore what happens when beauracracy runs rampant. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose marking as essay

Arguments for marking

WP:N

as historical

• Notability clearly lacks sufficient support to be considered a guideline given the opposes above, calls for renames, 189 editors with userboxes opposing it, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Notability has become a misshapen bastard child of the Five Pillars that should be put out of its misery. Wikipedia's growth has crawled to a snail's pace, even though it has not yet run out of paper. Fewer and fewer articles make it to main space. More and more potential editors are chased away, never to attempt contributing again. Demoting to an essay improves Wiki and returns attention to the strength of the Five Pilars. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments against marking

WP:N

as historical

I think this section is extraneous since we already have a section for opposers of WP:N existing at all. If N is retired then it will likely be marked as historical anyway. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:02, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Support marking as historical

1. Support marking as historical. Given the widespread opposition that brought about this RfC in the first placed, it should be acknowledged that this is a failed guideline. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)--A Nobody^{My talk} 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Support marking as historical so later editors can study it and see how beauracratic creep almost became the undoing of the encyclopdia anyone can edit. Mark it as a failed experiment, and return to the foundations of what made Wiki great. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose marking as historical

It's tough to have an RFC when discussing proposals in the abstract. Rename, to what, and why? Change, to what, and why? Without more information, a lot of people oppose just out of general principle. That said, having a huge list of suggestions can be just as bad, as you end up with dozens of "lone wolf" proposals that have little consensus outside of one person.

So, with those cautionary notes in mind, I'm wondering if it would be a bad idea to have a "list of alternative names for notability" at the top of the "rename" section. No rationales, no signatures. Just names. Would the list quickly get cluttered up with too many suggestions, thus negating its value? Randomran (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole support/oppose thing wasn't too great a concept for this, which is really more a preliminary information gathering quest. As for having a list of names, yeah I think that's a good idea and might get this somewhere a bit faster. So far the contenders I see are "Inclusion criteria", "Inclusion guideline", "Third-party sources", and "Wikipedic". Equazcion •✗/C • 19:21, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Do you think these names would quickly suffer the death of a dozen counter-proposals, overwhelming the discussion and making people oppose a rename out of general confusion? Randomran (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question... I personally doubt it because if people were able to come up with possible replacements so easily they probably would've posted them already via comments, even though no lists exists yet. We could combat the compulsion to post a lot of names by making the list not anonymous. If everyone needs to sign their suggestions, they'll be a bit more hesitant to vomit forth every trivial idea that comes to them. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:28, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should scratch the current format of the RfC altogether and instead reformat at with a list of naming options:

Support keeping name as Wikipedia:Notability.

Support re-name as

Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not

.

Support re-name as Wikipedia:Inclusion guidelines.

Support re-name as

Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion

.

Support re-name as

Wikipedia:Third party sources

.

Support re-name as Wikipedia:Article inclusion.

Oppose having this page as a guideline under any name.

Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You forgot WP:Article inclusion. I wonder why? --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Added and again urge a total revision of the RfC to be as the above options. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith please, Gavin. Equazcion •✗/C •

20:00, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• Having literally a dozen options to comment on separately is just going to ruin the RFC. The longer the RFC is, the less that people will want to comment. I think a list is the most we should do, and even then I'm not sure about that. I'd be more inclined to support a list if we grouped extremely similar ideas (inclusion criteria, inclusion guideline, criteria for inclusion) together in the same bullet. Readability and conciseness is very important, and even harder to achieve. Randomran (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Did the list thing. Agree on the reorganization of the RfC, that it would be a bad idea. All those different sections are counterproductive. People want to discuss, and discussions rarely fall under the specific categories of supporting or opposing something. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:15, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I am generally going to limit what I say here as indicated above, but it is pretty much looking like an overwhelming majority is opposed to making it a guideline. In fact more people supported demoting it to an essay (7 people) when that proposal was closed per snow then currently support making it a policy (4 people) and the percentage number is relatively similar. So, we should either have both open simultaneously just to see if any shift actually develops over time or close both as currently no consensus is being reached to change its status, while the calls for renaming or change are a bit more divided and therefore suggests if there is going to be any change it would most likely be with naming or how it is written. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether or not it should be (have been) closed per snow. However: You shouldn't be suggesting the close of a proposal you oppose on the grounds of a supposedly objective reason. No one in that position should be assuming themselves to be objective. And besides that, c'mon now, you're the last person to be making that kind of suggestion, per your own statements in the discussion above. You think the proposal about which you've made vicious repeated statements against should be closed. Well duh. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:55, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I've undone the close & collapse, because the absolute difference is too small to be snow and c.30 hours is not enough time to tell. If (as I suspect) it has been overtaken by events there won't be any more votes in the next 24 hours and it can be closed per "death-by-hypothermia". - Pointillist (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. -

talk) 01:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

3 to 1 is a pretty big difference that shows there is no way the proposal would succeed. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If there were 3 opposers and 1 supporter, that's also 3 to 1, but we wouldn't close the vote in that case. The ratio isn't the only factor. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:28, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Then, why not reopen the proposal to demote, because it has a similar mathematical margin and I notice people still want to comment for and against there? Why not let people express their opinion both ways? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? Because no one's requesting it but you. That's my reasoning. You've admitted to not approaching this issue with the least bit of objectivity, and now you want either the proposal you oppose to be closed or the one you support re-opened. You'll have to pardon me for not jumping right on that. My other reason is that the first proposal had a higher total number of votes and most people seem to consider it a snow. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:39, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)

At least two editors added "votes" even after it was closed anyway. One for support, one for oppose. If people still want to discuss (and those two editors are two editors beyond me), why not let them? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what purpose that would serve, to be honest. Time after time, you've rejected every discussion that reveals no consensus to demote/remove notability. I'm trying to
  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT if you don't like the result. Under what circumstances would you say that this RFC is conclusive? Randomran (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The purpose would be to allow editors who still want to voice their stance be heard; at least two editors added their stances after it was closed anyway. We don't have a deadline here and so if people still want to be heard, we should let them be heard. Or if one proposal is closed per snow and another opposite proposal has a similar statistical disparity indicating a 3 to 1 feeling one way, they should both be closed. Either both should be closed, or both should stay open in the interest of fairness. Who knows, maybe someone will come along and make an astonshingly compelling argument one way or the other that causes a shift in consensus. In any event, so long as a mere 35 say in this snapshot in time discussion to keep it as a guideline and yet 190 have userboxes opposed to notability, I cannot reasonably take it seriously that "notability" has sufficient community support. You may argue that it somehow has consensus, but that consensus will still not reflect the larger will of the community. Just because people don't comment here for whatever reason, I do nevertheless respect and consider their stated opinions elsewhere as I do not believe in marginalizing volunteers who make themselves heard on their userpages, but for whatever reason don't wish to participate in these discussions as well. Happy Valentine's Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Like I said, if you're *never* going to respect the outcome of this RFC until you agree with it, then I'm not even sure why you pushed so hard for this discussion in the first place. Randomran (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
      • We have what tens of thousands of contributors? If we have a discussion in which thousands of editors actually comment, that would be hard for even me to ignore. If, however, less than a hundred put a stance one way or the other, especially as most likely on veterans will even find this discussion, which means a good segment of our newer contributors are not getting to express their stances, how can it possibly reflect the real will of the community? Why not have a real poll, vote a la the ArbCom elections where we have totally separate pages Wikipedia:Pro-notability and Wikipedia:Anti-notability (or something along those lines) with the arguments for on top of the former and the arguments against on top of the latter and just leave it open more or less indefinitely so that we can see over a good amount of time what new arguments come about and how many people really support or oppose it? Or have both the calls to demote or promote open, but have one of those templates that appear during arbcom and other big elections that reach a much wider community, even new editors, etc.? "Notability" if taken seriously affects ALL Wikipedians, regardless of how long any of us have been around and as such, we should make every effort possible to see what recently joined editors think as well. I can easily dispute 35 supports vs 8 opposes (i.e. a net of 27) when there's a category elsewhere with 190 in effect opposes. I wouldn't be able to dispute thousands of supports if the opposes didn't grow. Plus, the proposals to rename and to fold into WP:V are pretty well split, which shows me there's mixed support (no consensus) on the current name and mixed support (no consensus) on if it should be a stand alone or part of something else, which further demonstrates a lack of overall consensus. Happy Valentine's Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Because Wikipedia is not a democracy where anything is decided by a poll of thousands -- even the selection of arbitrators. You're not allowed to
          WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT until you get the result you want. After the 20th time, you have to let this proposal go, and start thinking of another way forward. Randomran (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
          • That is tantamount to saying that only the opinions of a select segment of the community matters and is playing "I didn't hear that" to the vast majority of Wikipedians while forum shopping only in venues that will support keeping notability. The way forward is to see that there is a split over whether or not it should be renamed, which means objectively that the community is divided over its current name and that it's current name therefore lacks consensus. There is a split over whether or not it should be merged, which means the community is divided over whether or not it should be a separate guideline. Because the community even here is divided nearly even on these points, it demonstrates that its name and status as a separate guideline lacks a clear consensus and in such a case it should at least be tagged as disputed to reflect that reality. The way forward then would be to mark it as disputed and try to come up with alternatives and compromises that might gain consensus and to get greater participation here from more neutral editors who can better reflect a consensus as well. Happy Valentine's Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Then you need to re-read
              dispute resolution have repeatedly indicated that your suggested path forward is a dead end that results in no consensus at best, let alone a strong consensus against it. Randomran (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
              • I did not start this RfC, so... And if anything use of "notability" disrupts Wikipedia by allowing for editors to make a subjective and elitist "point" that only what a select minority of Wikipedians think is worthwhile matters. A legitimately strong consensus would be one in which thousands of editors commented, including new editors who do not easily find these pages. You've heard the expression "Actions speak louder than words" and I think there is a truth to that, the practice in good faith of thousands of editors to create, write, and read these articles over years that truthfully a fraction of the community arbitrarily deems non-notable speaks much louder than less than a hundred editors in the occasional month long RfC. Happy Valentine's Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)