In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:27:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, carcharothwp@googlemail.com writes:
"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.>>
---------------
Google Books changes everything. If they delete based on Google and fail to search Google Books for items of historical note then they are acting without a duty of actual research.
I'm not saying that people should delete based on Google results in the first place. In fact I am the one who put that note on historical subjects into the policy in the first place a few years back. Subjects who are not necessarily currently talked-up might have been quite the popular rage back in 1920 or 1920 or 1420, and should not be deleted based on current Google searches.
With Google Books we can now allow the Chair Potato to see that for themselves.
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...; bcd=Aprilfooter427NO62)
2009/4/27 WJhonson@aol.com:
I'm not saying that people should delete based on Google results in the first place. In fact I am the one who put that note on historical subjects into the policy in the first place a few years back. Subjects who are not necessarily currently talked-up might have been quite the popular rage back in 1920 or 1920 or 1420, and should not be deleted based on current Google searches.
I must say, the blindness of some AFD participants to anything that happened before 1995 can be more than a little annoying ...
- d.
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:27:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, carcharothwp@googlemail.com writes:
"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.>>
Google Books changes everything. If they delete based on Google and fail to search Google Books for items of historical note then they are acting without a duty of actual research.
I'm not saying that people should delete based on Google results in the first place. In fact I am the one who put that note on historical subjects into the policy in the first place a few years back. Subjects who are not necessarily currently talked-up might have been quite the popular rage back in 1920 or 1920 or 1420, and should not be deleted based on current Google searches.
With Google Books we can now allow the Chair Potato to see that for themselves.
Will Johnson
Google books is fine, as is google itself.
Neither is a substitute for common sense.
I'll take the subjectivity of human common sense over the arithmetic of search engines any day.
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
Google books is fine, as is google itself. Neither is a substitute for common sense. I'll take the subjectivity of human common sense over the arithmetic of search engines any day.
Certainly. But when someone seems not to be engaging it, it can be useful to wave the actual book (or a scan), not merely say "there's a book."
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
Google books is fine, as is google itself. Neither is a substitute for common sense. I'll take the subjectivity of human common sense over the arithmetic of search engines any day.
Certainly. But when someone seems not to be engaging it, it can be useful to wave the actual book (or a scan), not merely say "there's a book."
- d.
You are missing the point. I should not have to. If we have reasonably trustworthy information on something that commonsense tells us has some level of enduring significance, then finding a book should be unnecessary.
Commonsense, where it is more than just one person's view, should be sufficient.
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
Google books is fine, as is google itself. Neither is a substitute for common sense. I'll take the subjectivity of human common sense over the arithmetic of search engines any day.
Certainly. But when someone seems not to be engaging it, it can be useful to wave the actual book (or a scan), not merely say "there's a book."
You are missing the point. I should not have to. If we have reasonably trustworthy information on something that commonsense tells us has some level of enduring significance, then finding a book should be unnecessary. Commonsense, where it is more than just one person's view, should be sufficient.
I'm not saying you should have to, I quite agree. I just lack faith in the common sense of 100% of AFD regulars ...
- d.
Notability in Wikipedia is a joke, as is NPOV. Need I remind you about the article about Alan Cabal that is waiting to reach mainspace?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_articl...
There is a Squidoo lens about Alan Cabal that establishes his notability beyond a doubt:
http://www.squidoo.com/Alan-Cabal
Best, Bill
________________________________ From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 1:42:01 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
Google books is fine, as is google itself. Neither is a substitute for common sense. I'll take the subjectivity of human common sense over the arithmetic of search engines any day.
Certainly. But when someone seems not to be engaging it, it can be useful to wave the actual book (or a scan), not merely say "there's a book."
You are missing the point. I should not have to. If we have reasonably trustworthy information on something that commonsense tells us has some level of enduring significance, then finding a book should be unnecessary. Commonsense, where it is more than just one person's view, should be sufficient.
I'm not saying you should have to, I quite agree. I just lack faith in the common sense of 100% of AFD regulars ...
- d.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/27 WJhonson@aol.com:
I'm not saying that people should delete based on Google results in the first place. In fact I am the one who put that note on historical subjects into the policy in the first place a few years back. Subjects who are not necessarily currently talked-up might have been quite the popular rage back in 1920 or 1920 or 1420, and should not be deleted based on current Google searches.
I must say, the blindness of some AFD participants to anything that happened before 1995 can be more than a little annoying ...
I haven't found this to be a big problem in practice, but maybe I've been lucky? A handful of my edge-case biographies of 19th-century individuals have been nominated for AfD, but all survived. One was a translation from a famous 19th-century German encyclopedia (ADB), and nobody could find a single post-1900 source on the man, but it was kept nonetheless, with the justification that having once been included in ADB is sufficient to automatically establish notability. A pleasantly surprising result.
-Mark
2009/4/28 Bill Carter billdeancarter@yahoo.com:
Notability in Wikipedia is a joke, as is NPOV. Need I remind you about the article about Alan Cabal that is waiting to reach mainspace?
Oh, there is? I don't think you've told us about it.