Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/7/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
We require not only verifiability, but notability. I can create something today and document it today, but - save in rare circumstances - I cannot prove its importance today.
If something is referenced by a third-party reliable source today, chances are it's important.
That's a point I'm trying to address in [[Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal]]. My definition is that:
"Notability as a concept on Wikipedia is conferred through mentions in verifiable sources. These sources should be independent of both the topic and of wikipedia, and should be of the standard described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Articles should not be built using only the subject itself as sole source. This requirement for independent sources is so as to determine that the topic can be written without bias, and also that any claim to notability is likewise independent; otherwise the article is likely to fall foul of our vanity guidelines."
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.
Steve block