Those arguments only hold water if you go by a raw Google count. That's indeed a much too rough measure. At the very least one should compare this number with the number to be expected from the given type of subject if notable - I have accepted subjects with only a few dozen links (although really in those cases the check was more about realness than about notability), and rejected subjects with thousands (that's really too little for a web-based software tool). But the real correct way would be to not look at the number at all, and instead see if you can find a handful of links that by their nature can establish notability.
André On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > There are so many people in Wikipedia who are hardly notable but who have a > large base on Google. They just happen to be in the USA and they have been > noted for instance as a councilor of a small USA village. How in hell does > this mean notability ? > > Google in English is not in and of itself reliable as an indicator when the > lack of information from Google particularly from countries and other > languages is considered as an argument of insisting on the lack of > notability. The issue with self promoting is in a different domain;it is in > the language and the culture where Google may indicate relevance. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 14 December 2014 at 08:59, Marco Chiesa <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Il giorno 14/dic/2014 01:32, "Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या >> *فريدريك نورونيا" <[email protected]> ha scritto: >> > >> > Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the >> unquestioned >> > logic that >> > >> >> if-you-don't-have-a-cyber-presence-or-aren't-mentioned-there-you-don't-exist-or-are-anyway-non-notable. >> >> I'd say the official position is "if you have a strong cyber position >> you're very likely to be notable" >> >> > >> > This stacks the cards strongly against those from non-English >> backgrounds, >> > those from the less digitised parts of the world, and those who may be >> > working in non-print/non-textual media (e.g. people who have worked for >> the >> > Urdu service of the BBC, for instance, as it struck me when a page on >> > journalist Reba Shahid came up for deletion recently). >> >> Coming up for deletion doesn't mean getting deleted. I understand the >> problem, it takes more effort to show that something with an apparently low >> google count is indeed notable, you may have to keep explaining the contest >> every time, and it's very likely that something gets deleted because people >> who may have been able to demonstrate it was notable didn't show up. >> > >> >> > >> > * Ask whether issues like 'non-notability' need to be such a big issue, >> > considering both the diversity of the planet, and also the fact that in >> the >> > case of the Wikipedia, space isn't a huge problem as in the printed text. >> >> > Those interested will refer to any entry they want; "non-notable" entries >> > would automatically get less traction. Let the 'market' of >> > information-seekers decide what is 'non-notable'. >> >> Non-notability is an important criterium to fight against people using >> Wikipedia for self-promotion, which is nowadays a huge problem. To answer >> your concerns, the problem is the way you measure notability. Google >> results work well in many cases: if something as a lot of hits from >> reliable external websites, than notability is very likely. However, this >> is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one (although people are often >> unaware of the difference). >> >> > >> > Take an example of a prominent person from the world of Konkani >> literature >> > in Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhavi_Sardesai who also edits >> the >> > only literary joural in that language here. Her work is all in the >> Konkani >> > language (Devanagari script) and thus not visible to those on Wikipedia >> who >> > raise questions of notability. >> > >> >> I'm just speculating here, but it probably applies to some case. If someone >> has only written a short story which got published on some obscure journal, >> he/she is very unlikely to be notable. Now, if all you apparently find in >> google is this short story, then it's fair to raise a question about >> notability. In an ideal world, reliable sources that the person's >> production in language X is notable have been provided, so the doubt is >> solved and we all learn about another culture. >> >> Of course in real world you may only get someone whose first language is >> not English, and not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, who will just >> say: I very like this writer; maybe another couple of persons will do the >> same (and get accused of sockpuppetry), and the article will be deleted, >> also thanks to the comment of a lazy native speaker guy who spent one >> minute on google and only found a few hits on a forum. >> >> So, the problem is not notability, but the way it is measured. I'm sure >> that even in Goa someone tries to be in Wikipedia to get visibility, and >> even in the US someone who should be on Wikipedia gets deleted because no >> one is able to demonstrate the notability. Efforts to fill the gap are >> important, but controls must exist. >> >> Cruccone >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikipedia-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikipedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l -- André Engels, [email protected] _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
