[WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields

[Todd Allen]

On 5/10/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/11/07, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have supported the deletion of that article because there are no reliable
> > sources for this snowfields. It is a small ski-fields with no evidence given
> > of any notability. I looked and could find no independent sources. If there
> > are, add them to the article and I will reconsider my position.
>
> I agree that it is small and not well-known. However, as far as I
> know, our [[List of ski areas and resorts in New Zealand]] is
> comprehensive. If we delete that particular article, we will soon be
> in the awkward position of having an article on every skifield in New
> Zealand, except one, by choice. To put it differently, we will
> document every single permanent ski tow in New Zealand - except one.
>
> Ski.co.nz lists 25 skifields, including Invincible. We list 28, adding
> Mount Robert, Fox Peak and Tasman Glacier (another heli-ski only
> place, listed elsewhere on snow.co.oz). So it's not like there is some
> endless pool of ski areas we could add, if only we'd lower our
> standards.
>
> When you ask for "independent sources", is it because you're concerned
> that the information in the article is inaccurate, because your
> instinct tells you that that's how we know the topic is worth writing
> about, or because the heavily-disputed guideline known as Notability
> says so?
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Kind of all of the above. And also in the interests of having decent,
comprehensive articles, not just "an article." It may be that all of
them but one are notable. It may be that some of the others aren't
either, and just haven't found their way to AFD yet. But regardless,
there's only one verifiable (and there's the core policy) test of
notability-has it actually been noted? If the answer's no, then
whatever we may think or personally know, we can't verify an assertion
that it's notable. And by including it, we're de facto asserting that
it indeed is. To keep it, that needs backing up with sources, just
like anything.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.