[WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields

[Thomas Dalton]

> Though I appreciated the link, if only because it made me see one of
> the weirdest things about the current notability guidelines. By
> relying on multiple independent sources, they essentially establish a
> higher verifiability threshold for article topics than article
> content. In other words, nothing whatsoever prevents inclusion of
> this ski field on a list of NZ ski fields - that's verifiable
> information. But something now has to be super-verifiable to be an
> article topic.
>
> What is gained by creating this second class of verifiability? Why do
> article topics need to be super-verified? Or, more specifically, why
> is normal, garden-variety verifiability not good enough for article
> topics? And if it's not good enough for article topics, why is it
> good enough for your garden variety information?

Regardless of what you call it, it is perfectly obvious that the
threshold for including something in an article should be lower than
the threshold for giving something its own article. The alternative
would result in Wikipedia being a website containing billions is
interlinked stubs with nothing else since as soon as anything was
deemed worthy of getting added to an article it would be split of into
its own article.