[WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia

[Ray Saintonge]

WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> I'm not convinced that a property's mere existence on the National Trust  
> website makes it "notable".  We have many cases where things are mentioned  
> in this or that place and yet that thing is not "notable" the way we use the  
> word.  It would be up to the author to explain why this particular property 
>  is notable if any AfD were brought.
>   

Why would it be listed in the National Trust if it's not notable.  Your 
use of the royal "we" is not sufficient for projecting your 
idiosyncratic view of "notable" on the rest of us.  Requiring the author 
to explain why a property is notable makes it easier to have shifting 
goalposts for notability to satisfy the AfD denizens.
>  
> With over six *million* books now scanned, I think it's a much harder cry to  
> claim that some thing *not citable in Google Books* is yet still notable.
>  
> I think six million books probably covers almost all territory that we want 
>  to cover this decade.  I'd have to be convinced as to why a person or  
> thing, which cannot be found there, is notable.
>   
That speaks to a very narrow outlook on notability.  I'm sure that there 
is much which they have not yet scanned.  I am a little more 
discriminating than to believe yhat the two O's in Google's logo are two 
moons to be kissed.

Ec