On 4/7/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Now to some people this probably doesn't go far enough, but to me I think this is the base level that's been indicated time and time again and is established implicitly in our verification policy. I really want to get it defined explicitly. If we can get a consensus on this base definition/level of notability, that's going to impact heavily on debates across wikipedia. Having to explain the linking and intricacies of five policy pages over and over again is wearing me out and it's too open to being gamed. It would be nice to have this issue done and dusted and described at the level at which consensus exists.
I totally support that. I would also like the basic reasons for notability guidelines to be stated more explicitly. We don't, from memory, have any rationale stronger than "Wikipedia is not paper, but still!"
So we first need to explain why we don't want infinite numbers of articles: - We can't maintain them all to an acceptable standard - We do have physical standards - Articles on trivial topics damage the credibility of the encyclopaedia as a whole
Then we need to explain how we determine notability, and how we decide what's in and what's out: - For recent creations of mankind, newspaper articles are virtually a requirement - For societies, clubs etc, longevity and true notability compared to peers are required - Our natural bias against popular culture - Links to existing guidelines.
It seems like it might not be a bad idea to establish some precedents or borderline cases. "If your website is not at least as notable as foofoo.com, which has been repeatedly rejected, don't even bother".
Steve