On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:59:22AM -0700, Ray
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
"It's a logical extension of this that we
write or don't write about
something based upon the amount of sourcing available." No, it is not a
logical extension. We are concerned about whether we write or not. We
could use your criteria, or we could use another criteria (sic!). I say we
write about something that is notable. We need to define that properly.
Sourcing and notability are distinct criteria, though there is
considerable overlap. Sourcing lends itself more easily to definition
than notability, even if there remains considerable difference about
what sources may be reliable. Notability (both for articles and content
in articles) remains a completely subjective basis. Any definition
should be inclusionary in the form, "Xxxx is notable if it meets ONE of
these criteria." This would be followed by a list. If it is not on the
list it MAY be non-notable, and the person proposing to include the
article or material would have the burden of establishing notability.
He needs to be given the opportunity to do so.
If something is not notable, such as a very junior
soccer team, we do
not write an article on it, even if there are lots of sources for some
reason. I'm not striving for completeness. I'm striving to be
Completenes and being encyclopedic are not mutually exclusive. Why
should we have a rule against junior soccer teams? Why make the
prejudicial determination that team is not notable for the simple reason
that it is a junior soccer team? Nobody is going to insist that you
write about them. Why should you have the right to micromanage what
someone else does?
It is not just me. I think it is consensus. I mentioned a soccer team
because I had mentioned elsewhere (on WP:NOTE talk if I recall) a debate
on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoyland Common Falcons]], a team in
the village where my father was born and later returned to in his old age.
There was at one time a precise guideline about rejecting teams below 11th(?)
level, what ever that means, but this team is well below. In this case there
were few or no sources, but if there had been, I think they would have been
rejected. An encyclopedia does not need an article on every soccer team,
every Scout Troop, etc., etc.
Of course there are exceptions, such [[Hallam F.C.]], also in my old
stomping grounds just up the road from where I was brought up. That
however is the second oldest F. C. in the world playing on the oldest
Brian Salter-Duke b_duke(a)bigpond.net.au
[[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia.
Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Really, I think such "rules" should be guidance to subjects where
sufficient sourcing is likely to exist, not hard-and-fast either way.
If there's enough independent reliable source material to write a
genuinely good article about a junior soccer team, why not? On the
other hand, if there's not enough to write a good article about a band
who had two gold records, we shouldn't have that article. Same with
the pro player bit-that's a terrible mistake. Due to that, we have a
lot of "Jack Crack is the thirty-first string quarterback for the
Somewhere Whoevers," with no hope of expansion whatsoever. We really
need to rework the way we look at articles, and blanket categorical
inclusion or exclusion based upon arbitrary cutoff points ("two gold
records", "national tour", "won an X award", "been prolific
in a porno
niche" for godsakes). If there's some sources, but not enough for a
full GA/FA article on the individual subject, yet the article does
seem to merit mention of some type, -find a merge target-. Just about
everything has a related or parent topic. If it doesn't, and there
really is that little on it, we probably shouldn't have the article.
(We also need to add "Wikipedia is not Wikinews" to WP:NOT, we're
cannibalizing that poor project and including a lot of stuff we
shouldn't have in the meantime).