On 4/13/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/13/07, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
On 4/12/07, Seraphim Blade
<seraphimbladewikipedia(a)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(a)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