In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:39:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com writes:
Now, there are fairly likely also to be mentions of this in written sources - but it is equally the case that no-one may locate them during a 5-7 day afd.>>
---------------------------- I'm not convinced that a property's mere existence on the National Trust website makes it "notable". We have many cases where things are mentioned in this or that place and yet that thing is not "notable" the way we use the word. It would be up to the author to explain why this particular property is notable if any AfD were brought.
On a second note. With _http://books.google.com/books?oe=UTF-8&um=1&ei=v0v2SbnOH6DmsAOC6szcA... operty-revision&cd=1&q=the&btnG=Search+Books_ (http://books.google.com/books?oe=UTF-8&um=1&ei=v0v2SbnOH6DmsAOC6szcA... G=Search+Books)
over six *million* books now scanned, I think it's a much harder cry to claim that some thing *not citable in Google Books* is yet still notable.
I think six million books probably covers almost all territory that we want to cover this decade. I'd have to be convinced as to why a person or thing, which cannot be found there, is notable.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=http... Aprilfooter427NO62)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote: I'd have to be convinced as to why a person or
thing, which cannot be found there, is notable.
Will Johnson
Fine.
As long as you are willing to listen to any argument that something is significant, and aren't going to spout some arithmetical google mantra to replace having that discussion.
The lack of entry in google books may well be indicitive, but it is not conclusive.
If you remain open to "being convinced" then we are not disagreeing.
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I'm not convinced that a property's mere existence on the National Trust website makes it "notable". We have many cases where things are mentioned in this or that place and yet that thing is not "notable" the way we use the word. It would be up to the author to explain why this particular property is notable if any AfD were brought.
Why would it be listed in the National Trust if it's not notable. Your use of the royal "we" is not sufficient for projecting your idiosyncratic view of "notable" on the rest of us. Requiring the author to explain why a property is notable makes it easier to have shifting goalposts for notability to satisfy the AfD denizens.
With over six *million* books now scanned, I think it's a much harder cry to claim that some thing *not citable in Google Books* is yet still notable.
I think six million books probably covers almost all territory that we want to cover this decade. I'd have to be convinced as to why a person or thing, which cannot be found there, is notable.
That speaks to a very narrow outlook on notability. I'm sure that there is much which they have not yet scanned. I am a little more discriminating than to believe yhat the two O's in Google's logo are two moons to be kissed.
Ec