Il giorno 14/dic/2014 01:32, "Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا" fredericknoronha@gmail.com ha scritto:
Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the
unquestioned
logic that
if-you-don't-have-a-cyber-presence-or-aren't-mentioned-there-you-don't-exist-or-are-anyway-non-notable.
I'd say the official position is "if you have a strong cyber position you're very likely to be notable"
This stacks the cards strongly against those from non-English backgrounds, those from the less digitised parts of the world, and those who may be working in non-print/non-textual media (e.g. people who have worked for
the
Urdu service of the BBC, for instance, as it struck me when a page on journalist Reba Shahid came up for deletion recently).
Coming up for deletion doesn't mean getting deleted. I understand the problem, it takes more effort to show that something with an apparently low google count is indeed notable, you may have to keep explaining the contest every time, and it's very likely that something gets deleted because people who may have been able to demonstrate it was notable didn't show up.
- Ask whether issues like 'non-notability' need to be such a big issue,
considering both the diversity of the planet, and also the fact that in
the
case of the Wikipedia, space isn't a huge problem as in the printed text.
Those interested will refer to any entry they want; "non-notable" entries would automatically get less traction. Let the 'market' of information-seekers decide what is 'non-notable'.
Non-notability is an important criterium to fight against people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, which is nowadays a huge problem. To answer your concerns, the problem is the way you measure notability. Google results work well in many cases: if something as a lot of hits from reliable external websites, than notability is very likely. However, this is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one (although people are often unaware of the difference).
Take an example of a prominent person from the world of Konkani literature in Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhavi_Sardesai who also edits the only literary joural in that language here. Her work is all in the Konkani language (Devanagari script) and thus not visible to those on Wikipedia
who
raise questions of notability.
I'm just speculating here, but it probably applies to some case. If someone has only written a short story which got published on some obscure journal, he/she is very unlikely to be notable. Now, if all you apparently find in google is this short story, then it's fair to raise a question about notability. In an ideal world, reliable sources that the person's production in language X is notable have been provided, so the doubt is solved and we all learn about another culture.
Of course in real world you may only get someone whose first language is not English, and not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, who will just say: I very like this writer; maybe another couple of persons will do the same (and get accused of sockpuppetry), and the article will be deleted, also thanks to the comment of a lazy native speaker guy who spent one minute on google and only found a few hits on a forum.
So, the problem is not notability, but the way it is measured. I'm sure that even in Goa someone tries to be in Wikipedia to get visibility, and even in the US someone who should be on Wikipedia gets deleted because no one is able to demonstrate the notability. Efforts to fill the gap are important, but controls must exist.
Cruccone