I spent some time reading through that list and it just depressed me even more about the current direction of Wikipedia. Other than the reasonable deletion of

I spent some time reading through that list and it just depressed me even more about the current direction of Wikipedia. Other than the reasonable deletion of two promotional articles for books ( 'Formation of Postcolonial Englishes: Theories' and 'Secret Fantasies' ) that list consists of people arguing about 'notability'. That is begging the question, since notability is what Wikipedia defines and which is the core problem. What the outside World is saying is: remove the notability test. It has become so abused by the administators that they should forfeit it; they are not responsible enought to be trusted with it. ~~ Here's an example of one that was deleted for 'non-notability': Former minor league baseball announcer. Has not received any well-known award or honor nor has he made any widely recognized contribution to broadcasting. Which just illustrates how amorphous this 'notability' concept has become; it can be redefined at will to sataisfy any argument. So that individual was notable, but not notable enough on a global scale? Might as well rename 'notability' to 'is as famous as Tom Cruise' in that case. ~~ Here's another one, this individual had references in media but subjectively someone felt that wasn't good enough: The Plymouth article goes a bit deeper but its more of the "local boy living the dream" variety which isnt enough to satisfy GNG. There should be no opportunity for subjectivity. Was the individual referenced by independent media articles? Yes? Good enough.