Notability means different things to different people. What I find notable, someone else won't and vice versa.
What's important, it that the article is written well.
Wikipedia's strength is that it has more articles than any other encyclopedia. It also has "Good article status" and "Featured article status" to further indicate quality.
As long as someone finds a subject notable, I'm not going to disagree with them, and as long as it conforms to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, then that should be fine with everyone.
Regards,
Ian Tresman 33 Reginald Street, Derby DE23 8FR Tel: 01332 265566. email: it@knowledge.co.uk Fax: 0870 167 1951. http://www.tresman.co.uk/ian/
Indeed.
Singaporean Pop Idol. Notable to Mailer Diablo. Unimportant to me.
Perhaps people who judge notability should have a background in that field?
On 1/10/07, Ian Tresman it@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
Notability means different things to different people. What I find notable, someone else won't and vice versa.
What's important, it that the article is written well.
Wikipedia's strength is that it has more articles than any other encyclopedia. It also has "Good article status" and "Featured article status" to further indicate quality.
As long as someone finds a subject notable, I'm not going to disagree with them, and as long as it conforms to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, then that should be fine with everyone.
Regards,
Ian Tresman 33 Reginald Street, Derby DE23 8FR Tel: 01332 265566. email: it@knowledge.co.uk Fax: 0870 167 1951. http://www.tresman.co.uk/ian/
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I agree that notability should be judged by those familiar with the field.
If an article on Jeremy Silman were to be nominated for deletion, we should ask several chess players to determine whether he's notable.
If an article on Xiaxue were to be nominated for deletion, we should ask Singaporeans, and those familiar with the blogosphere, whether she's notable.
On 1/10/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed.
Singaporean Pop Idol. Notable to Mailer Diablo. Unimportant to me.
Perhaps people who judge notability should have a background in that field?
On 1/10/07, Ian Tresman it@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
Notability means different things to different people. What I find notable, someone else won't and vice versa.
What's important, it that the article is written well.
Wikipedia's strength is that it has more articles than any other encyclopedia. It also has "Good article status" and "Featured article status" to further indicate quality.
As long as someone finds a subject notable, I'm not going to disagree with them, and as long as it conforms to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, then that should be fine with everyone.
Regards,
Ian Tresman 33 Reginald Street, Derby DE23 8FR Tel: 01332 265566. email: it@knowledge.co.uk Fax: 0870 167 1951. http://www.tresman.co.uk/ian/
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 1/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that notability should be judged by those familiar with the field.
If an article on Jeremy Silman were to be nominated for deletion, we should ask several chess players to determine whether he's notable.
If an article on Xiaxue were to be nominated for deletion, we should ask Singaporeans, and those familiar with the blogosphere, whether she's notable.
That's why deletion sorting is so useful, we get those familiar with the field to give their opinion. The more wikiprojects we can get involved the better :)
Michael Billington
On 10/01/07, Ian Tresman it@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
Wikipedia's strength is that it has more articles than any other encyclopedia. It also has "Good article status" and "Featured article status" to further indicate quality.
As well as {{fact}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{npov}} - which I hold are *very* important for the readers to see. Being honest about our imperfections - which we are more painfully aware of than any outsider could be - is part of our being useful to the reader.
- d.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org