Steve Summit wrote:
Just so. We should remember that
"notability", and our
attempts to objectify it via reference to second-party
reliable sources, are only means to an end. The end goal is:
utility to our readers. Get hung up on notability if you like,
but the encyclopedic inclusivity criterion I like to use is,
"Might someone ever look this up and expect/want/need to find
this information?
Surely WP:IINFO applies here, however? Wikipedia cannot be an all-inclusive
cornucopia of useful tidbits of information. Adding a plethora of stubs
which feature little more than co-ordinates, a region link and a map
thumbnail are effective going to make Wikipedia an online map searching
facility.
Not really. What makes you think that we would limit these small
articles to geographical ones?
These stubs become the basis for future expansion or writing more about
the subject. I admit that many of these will stay small for a very long
time, but I don't see how encouraging comprehensiveness can be damaging
to the 'pedia.
Ec