[WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia

[doc]

WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/27/2009 12:06:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
> doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com writes:
> 
> 
>> You are missing the point. I should not have to. If we have reasonably 
>> trustworthy information on something that commonsense tells us has some 
>> level of enduring significance, then finding a book should be unnecessary.>
>> --------------------
> 
> How can you have "reasonably trustworthy information" without a citation?
> Maybe what you mean is, "I have a citation, it's just not on Google Books".
> If that's what you mean, than of course you can use it.  You have to show 
> that the subject is notable, that is still up to the contributor.
> 
> Commonsense is notoriously slippery.
> 
> 
> 

Human life is slippery and subjective - and encyclopedia that wants to 
record and reflect it needs to take that on board.

The initial scenario was an article, created from sources connected with 
the subject - sources that common sense tells us are fairly reliable - 
yet lacking "multiple third party sources" (or at least ones produced by 
  an afd).

To be precise, the case study I had in mind was (and I can't find the 
afd - it was some years ago) an old village church. The sources were 1) 
a write-up on the church's website giving its history and some 
architectural details. 2) A similar page on the local village website.

Now, the chances of those sources lying are fairly low. Yet, because no 
one could produce "multiple third party sources" we got people wanting 
to delete. There are quite likely to be written sources of local history 
- but they may not appear on the internet, in any case we have neutral, 
verifiable information of a building which will have some level of 
sustainable significance.

Common sense says this is verifiable, neutral and accurate - indeed more 
so than the average borderline BLP with 25 hits on googlenews.