"David Gerard" wrote
On 06/03/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 6, 2008, at 4:16 PM, David Gerard wrote:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354 Yes, (the Wikipedia jargon meaning of) notability is suitable material for a business- and economics-oriented news magazine.[*]
I will repeat my conviction that our notability guidelines are the biggest PR blunder we engage in.
No, it's second to BLPs. Not third, however.
Ha-ha, {{sofixit}}. No, really, granted that notability is broken and always has been, come up with something else for a change.
What scope do we have?
(A) Orphanage and adoption. We could increase the weight given to potential incoming links as a metric. Surely we could partition "New Pages" into those articles that are not orphans (redlinks from article space), and others.
(B) [[Category:Red list]]. We could get into gear with more reputable lists of desired topics created in agreed ways. I personally have heard about those "low-hanging fruit" once too often.
(C) Projectify Notability issues more. De facto an energetic WikiProject has a block vote, at AfD. We could make that more de jure.
I doubt there a single, simple solution. We should be prepared to look at overlapping approached.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam