Just your own opinion:

Should notability have something to do with how many people try to view the article? If something gets 50 hits per day and doesn't have an article, should it?

Also, do you think that Wikipedia is overall too deletionist?

Thanks for reading.

No and no.

Is this *the* ClaimJumperPete? You're one of my favourite vandals of all time, man!

Search numbers are far too easy to game.

Yes and No.

I don't think that LONG-TERM "view pages" stats would be easily gamed, except by someone who is really intent over a long period of time to game the system for his one or two articles he's trying to get loaded into Wikipedia. As long as the "view pages" stats are only a PART of the notability considerations, then it's not a problem.

As for deletionism, I could nominate about 2,000,000 articles on English Wikipedia for deletion, and I'll bet that 98% of the world wouldn't notice they were gone.

Haha, that made my day.

I started out with the idea that Wikipedia was too deletionist. As a new editor, I did find it somewhat dumb that articles with potential were deleted instead of improved upon. It made no sense to me back then, but it seemed to be a pretty common methodology among administrators.

Only if you thin k that "Britney Spears nude" should be the biggest article on Wikipedia

Just 2,000,000? You're just soft.

Notability is one of those wiki-redefined terms, so I'm going to try to avoid using it. But in my opinion Google Trends offers the best indication of how many people are searching for information on a topic, and something which more people are searching for is generally more useful for fulfilling the mission of Wikipedia. That said, there are other considerations that need to be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to have an article. And in a perfect world popularity wouldn't even be one of them.

In conclusion, what should Wikipedia do? Make a full history backup, delete everything and shut itself down.

Anthony's great.

As for Google Trends, I like how Jimmy Wales' biggest search days are when he's in hot water about something.

It's fun to compare how a terms like "Maersk Alabama" compare over time with "Jimmy Wales".

How can something that doesn't exist get 50 hits a day?




I don't think it is deletionist enough. I propose handing over the reins of Wikipedia to Stifle and letting him delete all of the articles on the site.


Well, I have nothing else to do. I don't race again for another month.

That actually might not be a bad idea.

And when Stifle is done, he can grab a rifle like Elmer Fudd and chase A Nobody into a large hollow log. A Nobody can emerge from the end of the log and roll it to the edge of a cliff. Stifle would run out into the air, stop, feel the air below his feet, look at the camera, and run back into the log. A Nobody would then roll the other side of the log over the cliff and Stifle would run out again into the air and...

Uh, am I watching too many cartoons?