[WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields

[Todd Allen]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 12/05/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>   
>> The only policy I'm taking issue with here is notability (which, I might
>> add, is actually just a guideline). Material that violates core policies
>> such as NPOV, NOR, etc. would still removable on that basis.
>>     
>
>
> Indeed.
>
> Can anyone actually derive Notability from neutrality, verifiability
> and no original research in elegant and obvious steps? Or work toward
> this?
>
> (For a previous example, our living bios policy is workable primarily
> because it is just those three rules hammered home, with extra
> emphasis on the verifiability.)
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>   
Well, let's take a stab here.

1. V indicates that "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party
sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There is, then, in
core policy, a clear differentiation between first-party and third-party
sourcing.
2. From NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." If
the only source we have is first-party, the article will be inherently
biased, as it is nearly impossible to write fairly and neutrally about
oneself.
3. From NOR, we cannot use our own perception or viewpoint to "correct"
a source.
4. From NOT, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. If
this only meant we don't accept unverifiable information, it would be
redundant to V. If it only meant we don't accept original research,
redundant to NOR. If it only meant we don't allow insertion of bias, it
would be redundant to NPOV. If it only meant that we don't accept
dicdefs, personal webpages, etc., it would be redundant to the rest of
NOT. Since it is indeed there, it indicates we intend to discriminate
beyond those principles.
5. From WP:CONSENSUS, it's pretty evident, by the fact that we have been
deleting articles on the grounds of lack of notability for quite some
time, there is consensus to do so. (Of course, consensus can change, but
more such articles will be deleted today, and more after that tomorrow.)

To sum up: We need independent and reliable sources on a subject so that
information is -verified- and -neutral-, and so that we need not use
-original research- to interpret that ourselves. We're -not- an
indiscriminate collection information, and we've generally demonstrated
-consensus- to delete articles which do not meet these criteria.

How's that?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070512/a7fee461/attachment-0001.pgp