On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक
नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا <fredericknoronha(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What happens is that its lack of online visibility
today gets translated
(almost) into non-notability:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with
Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of notability
is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in English...
this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the planet!
FN
How is it telling? I see one person showing doubts, then another
person swamping the discussion with arguments in favour, after which
everyone seems to consider the issue resolved. Maybe if Bejnar had not
put this material forward or had not been as eloquent, there would
have been more baseless discussion, but then again, maybe not.
To be honest, and I hope that you don't take this as criticism of you
as the writer, because that's not how it's meant, I don't think losing
the article in the way it was would be that bad. It was a two-line
stub, with one of the two lines not really relevant to the subject
(what Macarenhas was when he founded the magazine is relevant, what he
is now, is not) . The worst thing about it might be that a deletion
for being non-notable would have harmed the chances of re-creation.
In the end, I don't see how you would like to see this changed, except
by dropping any notability criterion we have. As the nominator writes
"I couldn't establish that [this] meets WP:NOTABILITY". There is no
requirement that notability must be established online, just that it
must be established (although he might be blamed for not trying harder
- when I do a Google search for '"Goa Today" magazine', the sheer
diversity of links would be enough for me to consider it notable). If
notability is an issue at all, there is a necessity to establish it
when it is in doubt. And yes, that might mean that for some subjects
it's easier to do than for others. But to me, the way to handle that
kind of 'hard cases' is exactly the way it is done here: Write a
message "I could not establish notability of this subject, can one of
you?" Perhaps another procedure might be better than the current AfD.
But that would just be shaving at the margins.
--
André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com