Steve Bennett wrote:
I actually don't see /how/ you could create 30 articles on a single Pokémon character without violating a) WP:NOR, b) WP:V, c) copyright, d) the laws of physics.
I don't know whether documenting every single thing the character does in every episode would violate copyright. But you have a point.
My impression was that many Pokémon characters regularly violate the laws of physics.
Yes, with WP:NOR and WP:V doing a good job at covering just about everything else - most of what /could/ be called "nn, d." can more succinctly be summed up as "The subject of this article is non-notable because what has been written amounts to original research and is not verifiable". I've been arguing this for about a year now.
This is a very interesting approach. In other words: If no one else has written about it, it musn't be notable. We don't decide for ourselves what is notable, any more than we decide for ourselves what truth is. The trouble is that there certainly *are* areas where nothing serious is written about it, yet is clearly interesting. [todo: find me an example someone :)]
The idea that notability should be synonymous with verifiability is not new. There would be fewer problems if that were the case, because it's much easier to have objective guidelines for verifiability.
Well, a while ago someone said "there are /no/ notability guidlines", and I almost believed it. Of course, this was before I realised what a trollpit AfD was; we quite clearly *do* have notability guidelines, cf. WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, etc.
Yeah. The other thing is, now that I think about it, very very many bands have articles written about them in local "music scene" papers. But these have two problems: A) So many articles are written, it doesn't really mean much in terms of notability. Even debut performances can get writeups in advance. B) Actually finding these articles. If they're not on the internet, how would you find them?
I can see where your "A" question can be troubling. We can perhaps reject such a reference if it is only advertising, but every time that you raise an argument that would limit the use of certain kinds of articles in an otherwise acceptable publication you create more room for argument. What is more harmful: occasional articles about unremarkable bands, or endless debates about notability? If we have an article about a forgettable band, forget it is exactly what the readers will do with the article, without a hundred people busy reminding them to forget it. The very boredom of these things will make them self-limiting.
"B" is a more interesting question. Perhaps the other side of that question is, "If they're already on the internet, why should we bother adding them?" Finding these articles is the challenge, but that's what research is all about. The function of libraries is to make this information available. Bibliographies tell you what to look for. It might be nice to find ways to better share our existing resources through something like http://www.librarything.com/index.php
Ec