[WikiEN-l] Notability and ski resorts (was: Newbie and not-so-newbie biting)

[Charles Matthews]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>   
>> I don't ski. You are partly arguing that there should not be a
>> notability guideline for skiing sites. And partly that a specialist
>> skiing encyclopedia should be a directory of just about all skiing
>> sites. I'm not really in a position to argue, since I'm not familiar
>> with that sector of reference literature. The usual test is that there
>> is such a book and it does include Kettlebowl.
>>     
>
> I seem to recall that in the notability policy there is also scope for
> comprehensiveness. That is, if a certain number of a given category of
> entities is denoted "notable", then we include articles about *all* of
> them, for comprehensiveness.
>
> I really wish I'd fought harder years ago against framing the scope of
> Wikipedia in terms of "notability". Notability is only part of the
> picture: there are other reasons for including articles. There are
> questions about how much should be written about a topic. There are
> questions about whether all notable subjects should have entries. Etc.
>   
"Notability" is undoubtedly broken. No one has come up with a 
replacement, though.
>> I think skiing fans should not be allowed to chip away at minimum
>> standards for inclusion just because they are, well, fans of skiing.
>>     
>
> Of course. But all rules are subject to change, and we certainly
> shouldn't be in a "you can't have that article about that ski area
> because I didn't get this article baout my pokemon character"
> position.
>   
OK, but take the argument that there aren't so many ski runs in 
Australia, and transfer it to some micro-sub-genre of heavy metal: 
"There just aren't so many perishthrashglam bands here, so we think it's 
just fine to have articles on all of them". Doesn't look so good.

The connection of ski runs with the naming of geographical features 
probably saves them (the cavalry coming) in numerous cases. It would be 
perverse to say an article about the feature couldn't mention the ski 
area appropriately, and include a relevant category. But it is our habit 
either to get at these things from a general principle, or have a 
notability guideline split off in an attempt to get consensus.
>   
>> WP:NOT says WP is not a directory, after all.
>>     
>
> I think Wikipedia has progressed far enough and become unique enough
> that WP:NOT is really not relevant anymore.
Strongly disagree.
>  Wikipedia is not
> *anything* else. It's not an encyclopaedia, it's not a directory, it's
> not a website, it's not a project...it's just totally sui generis. 
Yes it is sui generis, but WP:NOT is part of that, not an add-on. I'm 
somewhat concerned that a reliance on "reader survey" will indeed tend 
to blur all tried-and-tested criteria for inclusion, for the sake of 
other stuff that is not too useful (e.g. "I wish you'd include more 
movie rumors because I really like to read about them"). Downmarket beckons.

Charles