[WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia

[Carcharoth]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:02 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> 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.

You snipped too much:

"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."

Doc's saying that people delete based on Google results.

Carcharoth