On May 12, 2007, at 5:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
See [[User:Uncle G/On notability]] for a
comprehensive answer to that
question.
See, that doesn't actually answer the question I asked - it just says
"WRONG QUESTION!"
Though I appreciated the link, if only because it made me see one of
the weirdest things about the current notability guidelines. By
relying on multiple independent sources, they essentially establish a
higher verifiability threshold for article topics than article
content. In other words, nothing whatsoever prevents inclusion of
this ski field on a list of NZ ski fields - that's verifiable
information. But something now has to be super-verifiable to be an
article topic.
What is gained by creating this second class of verifiability? Why do
article topics need to be super-verified? Or, more specifically, why
is normal, garden-variety verifiability not good enough for article
topics? And if it's not good enough for article topics, why is it
good enough for your garden variety information?
-Phil