http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia
Discuss. :-)
Carcharoth
Background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#An_article_on_.22Notability.22.3F
Carcharoth wrote:
Rather misses the points that (a) the "sources" metric for notability is horribly bad, in that "famous for being famous" rates much higher than "made an obscure medical advance that only saves thousands of lives a year", unless you work on it, and (b) notability is a really bad concept for determining inclusion, except that we have no snappy replacement. Inclusion is what matters, ultimately. "Voting on notability" is obviously evil piled on evil, but somehow the double negative has worked for us.
Charles
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
Rather misses the points that (a) the "sources" metric for notability is horribly bad, in that "famous for being famous" rates much higher than "made an obscure medical advance that only saves thousands of lives a year", unless you work on it, and (b) notability is a really bad concept for determining inclusion, except that we have no snappy replacement. Inclusion is what matters, ultimately. "Voting on notability" is obviously evil piled on evil, but somehow the double negative has worked for us.
Another point: I've never understood (at least since starting to think about it) why notability should have anything to do with reliable sources. It seems to me that what we really want is *widely used* sources. If something receives heavy coverage in an unreliable source, it makes no sense not to include it.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
Rather misses the points that (a) the "sources" metric for notability is horribly bad, in that "famous for being famous" rates much higher than "made an obscure medical advance that only saves thousands of lives a year", unless you work on it, and (b) notability is a really bad concept for determining inclusion, except that we have no snappy replacement. Inclusion is what matters, ultimately. "Voting on notability" is obviously evil piled on evil, but somehow the double negative has worked for us.
Another point: I've never understood (at least since starting to think about it) why notability should have anything to do with reliable sources. It seems to me that what we really want is *widely used* sources. If something receives heavy coverage in an unreliable source, it makes no sense not to include it.
The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical formula: sources *n / PI = notability.
To take an obvious example. An article on an 18th church building, which has been created using a well-researched webpage from the church and perhaps some mention on the denomination's site, plus one brief mention on the site of the village in which it is situation, is deleted as "not notable" because it lacks "multiple third party sources".
Yes, the sources we have are unlikely to be wrong about the architectural merits, and quite possibly the building will be mentioned in some other local history books - it is just that this won't google up.
Yet, the subject, as minor as it is has reasonably reliable sourcing and a degree of enduring importance. Sure, it isn't very significant, but such significance as it has will persevere.
Meanwhile anyone who gets 4min of media fame passes the "multiple third party sources" test and gets included. Despite the fact that their fame is passing. Oh, the notion that notability isn't temporary is quite absurd.
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical formula: sources *n / PI = notability.
To take an obvious example. An article on an 18th church building, which has been created using a well-researched webpage from the church and perhaps some mention on the denomination's site, plus one brief mention on the site of the village in which it is situation, is deleted as "not notable" because it lacks "multiple third party sources".
If an 18th century church has managed to avoid appearing in any of the books on random bits of village architecture and in any of the local histories that fill the shelves of libraries it's not very notable. If a church has managed to exist since the 18th century without being the subject of even one local news piece it's heading towards impressively non notable territory. I can see it happening with some of the 60s built churches (assuming the local newspaper has a ban on printing anything religion related) but even 19th century would be rather surprising.
geni wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical formula: sources *n / PI = notability.
To take an obvious example. An article on an 18th church building, which has been created using a well-researched webpage from the church and perhaps some mention on the denomination's site, plus one brief mention on the site of the village in which it is situation, is deleted as "not notable" because it lacks "multiple third party sources".
If an 18th century church has managed to avoid appearing in any of the books on random bits of village architecture and in any of the local histories that fill the shelves of libraries it's not very notable. If a church has managed to exist since the 18th century without being the subject of even one local news piece it's heading towards impressively non notable territory. I can see it happening with some of the 60s built churches (assuming the local newspaper has a ban on printing anything religion related) but even 19th century would be rather surprising.
There always are going to be edge cases. Discussions of the inclusion business do tend to resolve into people denying that the given case is an edge case. Nothing much we can do there - an eighteenth century church would be much more notable in Idaho than in Ipswich anyway. Don't tell me such a thing in England wouldn't be in Pevsner, though.
Charles
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:02 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical formula: sources *n / PI = notability.
To take an obvious example. An article on an 18th church building, which has been created using a well-researched webpage from the church and perhaps some mention on the denomination's site, plus one brief mention on the site of the village in which it is situation, is deleted as "not notable" because it lacks "multiple third party sources".
If an 18th century church has managed to avoid appearing in any of the books on random bits of village architecture and in any of the local histories that fill the shelves of libraries it's not very notable. If a church has managed to exist since the 18th century without being the subject of even one local news piece it's heading towards impressively non notable territory. I can see it happening with some of the 60s built churches (assuming the local newspaper has a ban on printing anything religion related) but even 19th century would be rather surprising.
You snipped too much:
"Yes, the sources we have are unlikely to be wrong about the architectural merits, and quite possibly the building will be mentioned in some other local history books - it is just that this won't google up."
Doc's saying that people delete based on Google results.
Carcharoth
geni wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical formula: sources *n / PI = notability.
To take an obvious example. An article on an 18th church building, which has been created using a well-researched webpage from the church and perhaps some mention on the denomination's site, plus one brief mention on the site of the village in which it is situation, is deleted as "not notable" because it lacks "multiple third party sources".
If an 18th century church has managed to avoid appearing in any of the books on random bits of village architecture and in any of the local histories that fill the shelves of libraries it's not very notable. If a church has managed to exist since the 18th century without being the subject of even one local news piece it's heading towards impressively non notable territory. I can see it happening with some of the 60s built churches (assuming the local newspaper has a ban on printing anything religion related) but even 19th century would be rather surprising.
Fine in theory, but doesn't actually work.
Because the 18th century church, unless it is architecturally unique or historically significant, may well be in print sources, but almost certainly none that anyone can find during the 5 days in afd. Local histories for location y, are not generally held by libraries in place z - even if any afd person bothered to look. Whilst one click on google will provide "multiple third party sources" for Numpty the one-hit-wonder for Kentucky.
No, some element of common sense and subjective judgement needs to be used, as much as the afd objectivists hate it.
Why on earth delete something, when the source is trustworthy, and the thing obviously has some degree of sustainable significance?
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
*Delete, non-notable, vanity ~~~~
--Oskar