There are so many people in Wikipedia who are hardly notable but who have a
large base on Google. They just happen to be in the USA and they have been
noted for instance as a councilor of a small USA village. How in hell does
this mean notability ?
Google in English is not in and of itself reliable as an indicator when the
lack of information from Google particularly from countries and other
languages is considered as an argument of insisting on the lack of
notability. The issue with self promoting is in a different domain;it is in
the language and the culture where Google may indicate relevance.
On 14 December 2014 at 08:59, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Il giorno 14/dic/2014 01:32, "Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या
*فريدريك نورونيا" <fredericknoronha(a)gmail.com> ha scritto:
Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the
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
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
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
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
only literary joural in that language here. Her
work is all in the
language (Devanagari script) and thus not visible
to those on Wikipedia
> 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.
Wikipedia-l mailing list