[WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia

[Charles Matthews]

geni wrote:
> 2009/4/27 doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com>:
>   
>> 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".
>>     
>
> If an 18th century church has managed to avoid appearing in any of the
> books on random bits of village architecture and in any of the local
> histories that fill the shelves of libraries it's not very notable. If
> a church has managed to exist since the 18th century without being the
> subject of even one local news piece it's heading towards impressively
> non notable territory. I can see it happening with some of the 60s
> built churches (assuming the local newspaper has a ban on printing
> anything religion related) but even 19th century would be rather
> surprising.
>
>   
There always are going to be edge cases.  Discussions of the inclusion 
business do tend to resolve into people denying that the given case is 
an edge case. Nothing much we can do there - an eighteenth century 
church would be much more notable in Idaho than in Ipswich anyway.  
Don't tell me such a thing in England wouldn't be in Pevsner, though. 

Charles