Ian Woollard wrote:
On 24/11/2007, Steve Summit <scs(a)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.