On 4/13/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/13/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/12/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, backup players don't get a ton of coverage unless they really do end up -playing-, and even then the coverage tends to be trivial except in unusual situations. Name-drops and newspaper space filler is pretty poor sourcing. If that's all there is, we shouldn't have that article.
Trivial mentions usually don't give much information to base an article on, but in the right circumstances, it can be an excellent aid in determining notability. Example: Even if John Doe has no article written specifically about him. If some article mentions he was the first to climb Mount Everest, his notability is established, despite the fact he may have had a one line-mention in a 2000 word article.
Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
True...but not. If that were genuinely all there is, we could consider him notable all we like, but we shouldn't have the article. Generally, however, that's a moot point. The first guy to climb Everest has tons of material written about him, easily allowing us to have an article. The trouble we run into is "notability by category", where we're looking at the wrong thing. Instead of saying "Do we think that an X is notable?" we should be asking "Has it been noted? (As in, is there a good amount of reliable source material available?)" As with everything, what -we- think means nothing, what the -sources- think means everything. If the sources, by -not noting- the subject significantly, decide it's not notable, it's not our place to "correct" or overrule that, any more than we'd do with any sourcing issue. Of course, issues of minor note may still be appropriate to mention in related or parent articles.
Seraphimblade