2008/6/2 Haza-w@enwiki en.haza-w@ip3.co.uk:
Steve Summit wrote:
Just so. We should remember that "notability", and our attempts to objectify it via reference to second-party reliable sources, are only means to an end. The end goal is: utility to our readers. Get hung up on notability if you like, but the encyclopedic inclusivity criterion I like to use is, "Might someone ever look this up and expect/want/need to find this information?
Surely WP:IINFO applies here, however? Wikipedia cannot be an all-inclusive cornucopia of useful tidbits of information. Adding a plethora of stubs which feature little more than co-ordinates, a region link and a map thumbnail are effective going to make Wikipedia an online map searching facility.
I think this is missing the point, and looking for an excuse not to have the article.
It's not "indiscriminate information" at all, but a relevant article on a topic with relevant information to someone looking up that topic at the correct page name for that topic.
Would it be more useful to a reader looking up the locality in question than no article at all? I'd say it obviously would.
- d.