On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:02 PM, geni <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/4/27 doc <[email protected]>: >> 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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
