Ian Woollard wrote:
On 24/11/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Trivia is not a neutrality issue. Not-long-enough introductions are not a neutrality issue.
It is frequently a NPOV issue though, if it isn't notable. And if it is to be notable, then it must be verifiably notable, so there's a verifiability issue *also* in many cases.
"NPOV" _is_ "neutrality." The two are synonymous.
Where trivia meets the NPOV and verifiability and reliable source requirements, then it *should* stay.
Right?
Right.
Right. But notability and verifiability are, sadly, not synonymous in their usage on Wikipedia. I think they should be but therein lies the great conflict of our time.
Even accepting that "notability" is going to be with us for the forseeable future, though, I think it's a bad idea to be applying it widely on a sub-article level. We want our biography articles to contain peoples' dates of birth, for example, but in very few cases is that date of birth a "notable" fact. Simply a verifiable one.