[WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia

[doc]

Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia
>>>   
>> Rather misses the points that (a) the "sources" metric for notability is 
>> horribly bad, in that "famous for being famous" rates much higher than 
>> "made an obscure medical advance that only saves thousands of lives a 
>> year", unless you work on it, and (b) notability is a really bad concept 
>> for determining inclusion, except that we have no snappy replacement.  
>> Inclusion is what matters, ultimately.  "Voting on notability" is 
>> obviously evil piled on evil, but somehow the double negative has worked 
>> for us.
> 
> Another point: I've never understood (at least since starting to think about
> it) why notability should have anything to do with reliable sources.  It
> seems to me that what we really want is *widely used* sources.  If something
> receives heavy coverage in an unreliable source, it makes no sense not to
> include it.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________

The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the 
brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important 
  in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical 
formula: sources *n / PI = notability.

To take an obvious example. An article on an 18th church building, which 
has been created using a well-researched webpage from the church and 
perhaps some mention on the denomination's site, plus one brief mention 
on the site of the village in which it is situation, is deleted as "not 
notable" because it lacks "multiple third party sources".

Yes, the sources we have are unlikely to be wrong about the 
architectural merits, and quite possibly the building will be mentioned 
in some other local history books - it is just that this won't google up.

Yet, the subject, as minor as it is has reasonably reliable sourcing and 
  a degree of enduring importance. Sure, it isn't very significant, but 
such significance as it has will persevere.

Meanwhile anyone who gets 4min of media fame passes the "multiple third 
party sources" test and gets included. Despite the fact that their fame 
is passing. Oh, the notion that notability isn't temporary is quite absurd.