Wikipedia talk:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground

email suggestion

I suggest removing:

We can also recommend emailing 20 or 30 inclusionists if you really want the article kept:

This is really a dangerous idea, as we can have huge blocks take over on individual AFDS (as bad for keeps as deletes). --Rob 04:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Dangerous indeed. Perilously close to Gastroturfing, in fact. Just zis Guy you know? 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Article moved

Was the move part of any consensus? Because I'm having trouble finding a discussion surrounding the same. -- Krash (Talk) 01:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but it was done during, and mentioned in, an AFD discussion, which should have made it noticeable, giving a a chance for objections. If you object to the move, I would accept moving it back, unless/until there's consensus. I personally found the old name very rude, and insulting. --Rob 01:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So you said, but that's because you seem determined to misunderstand what it's about, and have changed the text to build in that misunderstanding. It is now back where it started. Just zis Guy you know? 11:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm frankly disappointed in the move back. You seemed to indicate (in the AFD discussion) that you had a purpose other then what the title implied. I won't move the title back. I did it is a kind of test, to see what the agenda is. I have my answer. Sadly, I won't get much support from others, as people who are really upset by this attitude in AFD simply leave the project, and don't stay to fix this type of attitude by entrenched AFD warriors. Insulting living people who are subject's of bio's is one of the worst things we do in AFD, that does grave harm to our reputation. This page (especially the title), is simply a tool to do that. Why can't we just write an encyclopedia, and not feel the need to put people down. How about writing encyclopedic articles, instead of put downs. Incidently, you may find my attitude uncivil. I hope not. But, I beleive you have thick skin and can take it. You don't seem to realize the people this saying is used against, do not have thick skin, and shouldn't be expected to. We seem to forget people who should not have biographies in Wikipedia, namely private citizens, are also the very people who should be protected from such public put downs. --Rob 11:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The para you inserted at the top does, at last, tell me what your fundamental problem is here. I don't take issue with this (although I would hope we can phrase is somewhat more succinctly). My problem is not with the subjects themselves, after all, it's with editors who fail to make a decent attempt to explain why the subject should be in Wikipedia at all. Just zis Guy you know? 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've tried to build your point into the flow of the essay. Lack of notability does not reflect discredit on an individual, it simply means they do not rise above the common herd. Just zis Guy you know? 14:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it incorporates some good stuff, but it misses the point that bio subjects read our discussions, and are hurt by statements like "I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground". But, for now, what I'll do, is let this drop for the moment, and see how this page, in its current form, and original title, is used in AFD discussions. Any future discussion I do here, will then be based on citeable examples. --Rob 15:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems fair. I am definitely not encouraging people to snipe at subjects, be they ever so humble, so I will also be interested to see how this pans out. Just zis Guy you know? 16:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have to mention one more point. It says "Holders of significant national elected office are deemed notable, but what about those running for office? ". As a side-effect, this implies (though doesn't state literally) a vastly higher standard of inclusion than we actually have for elected people. Based on WP:BIO and and precedent, we keep almost all members of provincial/state legislatures, even one-term backbenchers. We don't require them to be particularly special within that group (as the group itself is notable), and definately don't need them to be national. If you're going to give examples of what's kept, we should give resonable examples. --Rob 16:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an example. One kind of office-holder is kept per guideline; what about the varying stages of aspiration to that office? This is not a replacement for [{WP:BIO]], which is quite specific about what is and is not included, it's an essay which discusses a thought process. Just zis Guy you know? 17:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming

I strongly agree with the name "I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground". The other naming is pointless. This is a Wikipedia essay in the Wikipedia namespace. NPOV does not apply. If the people who disagree want to write Wikipedia:Just because you don't know him doesn't mean he's not notable, feel free. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad explanation for example

While in general this essay makes an important point - not everything is notable - the example currently written treads on very dangerous ground. By stating that a subject must be interesting and furthermore, written in an interesting fashion, it seems to imply that quality of writing affects notability issues. -moritheil^Talk 04:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to retain the original essay where possible while getting away from the assertion that an individual editor's writing somehow affects the actual notability of a topic. -moritheil^Talk 04:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)