So an article I started is being AfD'd for notability. So like most responsible Wikipedians, I come here to this list to bitch about both AfD and notability in general.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Invincible_Snow...
The argument seems to go something like this: "There are 30 ski areas in NZ. 29 of them are notable and deserve articles. This one isn't. And doesn't".
The whole concept of notability just seems to be letting us down. Why delete an article which completes the comprehensiveness of a topic, is harmless (ie, is not causing us any headaches), and is not a slippery sope - there's only one of them. I can think of lots of good reasons to delete non-notable articles: - There are so many that maintaining them is impossible - They are magnets for spam, defamation and the like - The people adding them have a vested interest which is constantly fighting against the neutrality of Wikipedia - They are poorly written and researched, because serious editors don't care to spend any time or effort on them
But I don't see how any of those apply here. It's one single article about a single ski area. Surely the interests of comprehensiveness outweigh those of strictly enforcing a controversial guideline (not policy)?
Steve
On 5/11/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
So an article I started is being AfD'd for notability. So like most responsible Wikipedians, I come here to this list to bitch about both AfD and notability in general.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Invincible_Snow...
The argument seems to go something like this: "There are 30 ski areas in NZ. 29 of them are notable and deserve articles. This one isn't. And doesn't".
The whole concept of notability just seems to be letting us down. Why delete an article which completes the comprehensiveness of a topic, is harmless (ie, is not causing us any headaches), and is not a slippery sope - there's only one of them. I can think of lots of good reasons to delete non-notable articles:
- There are so many that maintaining them is impossible
- They are magnets for spam, defamation and the like
- The people adding them have a vested interest which is constantly
fighting against the neutrality of Wikipedia
- They are poorly written and researched, because serious editors
don't care to spend any time or effort on them
But I don't see how any of those apply here. It's one single article about a single ski area. Surely the interests of comprehensiveness outweigh those of strictly enforcing a controversial guideline (not policy)?
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve,
I have supported the deletion of that article because there are no reliable sources for this snowfields. It is a small ski-fields with no evidence given of any notability. I looked and could find no independent sources. If there are, add them to the article and I will reconsider my position.
The article currently states "*Invincible Snowfields* is a private ski resort near Glenorchyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenorchy%2C_New_Zealandin the South Island http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Island of New Zealandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand. Accessible only by helicopter, it has a single ski tow, and no groomed trails."
As far as the article is concerned, you would be better off looking for sources to base an article on than coming here and complaining. Generally skifields have plenty of media articles about them and have associated communities. This seems to have none.
Regards
*Keith Old*
On 5/11/07, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
I have supported the deletion of that article because there are no reliable sources for this snowfields. It is a small ski-fields with no evidence given of any notability. I looked and could find no independent sources. If there are, add them to the article and I will reconsider my position.
I agree that it is small and not well-known. However, as far as I know, our [[List of ski areas and resorts in New Zealand]] is comprehensive. If we delete that particular article, we will soon be in the awkward position of having an article on every skifield in New Zealand, except one, by choice. To put it differently, we will document every single permanent ski tow in New Zealand - except one.
Ski.co.nz lists 25 skifields, including Invincible. We list 28, adding Mount Robert, Fox Peak and Tasman Glacier (another heli-ski only place, listed elsewhere on snow.co.oz). So it's not like there is some endless pool of ski areas we could add, if only we'd lower our standards.
When you ask for "independent sources", is it because you're concerned that the information in the article is inaccurate, because your instinct tells you that that's how we know the topic is worth writing about, or because the heavily-disputed guideline known as Notability says so?
Steve
On 5/11/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/11/07, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
I have supported the deletion of that article because there are no
reliable
sources for this snowfields. It is a small ski-fields with no evidence
given
of any notability. I looked and could find no independent sources. If
there
are, add them to the article and I will reconsider my position.
I agree that it is small and not well-known. However, as far as I know, our [[List of ski areas and resorts in New Zealand]] is comprehensive. If we delete that particular article, we will soon be in the awkward position of having an article on every skifield in New Zealand, except one, by choice. To put it differently, we will document every single permanent ski tow in New Zealand - except one.
Ski.co.nz lists 25 skifields, including Invincible. We list 28, adding Mount Robert, Fox Peak and Tasman Glacier (another heli-ski only place, listed elsewhere on snow.co.oz). So it's not like there is some endless pool of ski areas we could add, if only we'd lower our standards.
When you ask for "independent sources", is it because you're concerned that the information in the article is inaccurate, because your instinct tells you that that's how we know the topic is worth writing about, or because the heavily-disputed guideline known as Notability says so?
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve,
My feelings on the notability are based on my judgement rather than the guidelines. It comes from a fairly long association with skifields over the past 27 years of my life.
There are normally a range of ways a skifield or resort can be notable and have reliable sources about it.
a) having permanent residents and communities of interest - most resorts that I am aware of have both;
b) having had news reports, travel articles and ski magazines on it - Thredbo in Australia has over 5,500 articles about it - ( http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Thredbo&btnG=Search+Archives&...) and Perisher Valleyover 1,000 ( http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Perisher+Valley&btnG=Search+Archi... )
c) there are references to them in books and even books written about them - a local historical society has written a history of Thredbo;
d) Olympic, World Cup, World Championship and Olympic trials in ski events are held there;
e) they are significant geographical features in their own rights - the Tasman Glacier is one of the largest glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere and our article about that glacier focuses on that. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman_Glacier]
f) they are often in national parks or areas of conservation value and there are government documents referring to that;
g) Bureaus of Meteorogy prepare weather forecasts for them and media outlets run ski reports on conditions on the fields.
My judgement is that we need others to establish the notability of something. In this instance, I cannot see anything from an independent third party establishing the significance of this skifield. If there isn't it can sit in the List of ski areas and resorts of New Zealand until we have independent sources to write an article about it. We can have it as a redirect to the List of ski areas and resorts of New Zealand.
I will go to the AfD discussion and suggest that.
Regards
*Keith Old*
Keith Old
On 5/10/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/11/07, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
I have supported the deletion of that article because there are no reliable sources for this snowfields. It is a small ski-fields with no evidence given of any notability. I looked and could find no independent sources. If there are, add them to the article and I will reconsider my position.
I agree that it is small and not well-known. However, as far as I know, our [[List of ski areas and resorts in New Zealand]] is comprehensive. If we delete that particular article, we will soon be in the awkward position of having an article on every skifield in New Zealand, except one, by choice. To put it differently, we will document every single permanent ski tow in New Zealand - except one.
Ski.co.nz lists 25 skifields, including Invincible. We list 28, adding Mount Robert, Fox Peak and Tasman Glacier (another heli-ski only place, listed elsewhere on snow.co.oz). So it's not like there is some endless pool of ski areas we could add, if only we'd lower our standards.
When you ask for "independent sources", is it because you're concerned that the information in the article is inaccurate, because your instinct tells you that that's how we know the topic is worth writing about, or because the heavily-disputed guideline known as Notability says so?
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Kind of all of the above. And also in the interests of having decent, comprehensive articles, not just "an article." It may be that all of them but one are notable. It may be that some of the others aren't either, and just haven't found their way to AFD yet. But regardless, there's only one verifiable (and there's the core policy) test of notability-has it actually been noted? If the answer's no, then whatever we may think or personally know, we can't verify an assertion that it's notable. And by including it, we're de facto asserting that it indeed is. To keep it, that needs backing up with sources, just like anything.