On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:02 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical formula: sources *n / PI = notability.
To take an obvious example. An article on an 18th church building, which has been created using a well-researched webpage from the church and perhaps some mention on the denomination's site, plus one brief mention on the site of the village in which it is situation, is deleted as "not notable" because it lacks "multiple third party sources".
If an 18th century church has managed to avoid appearing in any of the books on random bits of village architecture and in any of the local histories that fill the shelves of libraries it's not very notable. If a church has managed to exist since the 18th century without being the subject of even one local news piece it's heading towards impressively non notable territory. I can see it happening with some of the 60s built churches (assuming the local newspaper has a ban on printing anything religion related) but even 19th century would be rather surprising.
You snipped too much:
"Yes, the sources we have are unlikely to be wrong about the architectural merits, and quite possibly the building will be mentioned in some other local history books - it is just that this won't google up."
Doc's saying that people delete based on Google results.
Carcharoth