User:Draeco/NASDAQ

Notability Alone Shouldn't Determine an Article's Quashability. No other policy or guideline is enforced so fanatically. Certainly notability can be part of a delete/keep argument, but it should be one element of a comprehensive evaluation, not be an absolute litmus test.

Even the three core content policies are enforced with some temperance. Countless Wikipedia articles have a non-neutral point of view, show no sources for verifiability, or display original research. Yet a weakness in one of these requirements may be compensated by strength in another, and they are kept.

Imperfect articles like the examples above still are kept, and not just by mistake. They may eventually be improved. Perfunctory deletion of an article destroys this possibility of improvement. It hides the original content from all but administrators, so that it cannot be improved by community collaboration. It also drives away contributors whose initial contributions may seem non-notable but have potential to be solid articles. Tragically, it actually becomes more difficult to recreate an article that at least one other editor considered sufficiently notable to create.

Alternatives exist for deletion. Add Template:Notability to the article. Improve the article yourself. Allow others to do so.

In summary, consider notability as just one guideline among many relevant policies and guidelines. Do not delete articles based on notability alone, especially when it is strong in other areas.