On May 12, 2007, at 5:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
See [[User:Uncle G/On notability]] for a comprehensive answer to that question.
See, that doesn't actually answer the question I asked - it just says "WRONG QUESTION!"
Though I appreciated the link, if only because it made me see one of the weirdest things about the current notability guidelines. By relying on multiple independent sources, they essentially establish a higher verifiability threshold for article topics than article content. In other words, nothing whatsoever prevents inclusion of this ski field on a list of NZ ski fields - that's verifiable information. But something now has to be super-verifiable to be an article topic.
What is gained by creating this second class of verifiability? Why do article topics need to be super-verified? Or, more specifically, why is normal, garden-variety verifiability not good enough for article topics? And if it's not good enough for article topics, why is it good enough for your garden variety information?
-Phil