geni wrote:
2009/4/27 doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com>om>:
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?