[WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields

[David Gerard]

On 12/05/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:

> To be clear on that: I agree with David to some degree, the
> subject-specific stuff is totally subjective and has to go. But N
> itself is a -brilliant- idea. We really should have enough independent
> source material to someday write a GA or FA on a subject in order to
> justify a full article on it. (Note I mean that amount of source
> material should -exist-, even if the article is -currently- a
> one-source stub.) Otherwise, delete it, merge it, redirect it, do
> -something- with it, but get rid of the forest of stubs that won't
> ever get past that because they -can't- ever get past that. One decent
> article and nine useful redirects are far better than ten permastubs.


I dunno. I don't care about short little articles because I can find a
topic if it's in its own article instead of merged into a 60k list.

I'm thinking of usefulness to the reader here. Third-party
verifiability rather than "notability" is good because if there's no
third party material the reader wouldn't have a reason to look it up,
and it doesn't cut off the Long Tail the way arbitrary notability bars
do.

I've yet to have it understandably explained to me why arbitrary
notability bars are good for the reader typing a term into the search
box, and why nothing is better than something (verifiable).


- d.