2008/6/2 Haza-w@enwiki <en.haza-w(a)ip3.co.uk>uk>:
Steve Summit wrote:
> Just so. We should remember that
"notability", and our
> attempts to objectify it via reference to second-party
> reliable sources, are only means to an end. The end goal is:
> utility to our readers. Get hung up on notability if you like,
> but the encyclopedic inclusivity criterion I like to use is,
> "Might someone ever look this up and expect/want/need to find
> this information?
Surely WP:IINFO applies here, however? Wikipedia
cannot be an all-inclusive
cornucopia of useful tidbits of information. Adding a plethora of stubs
which feature little more than co-ordinates, a region link and a map
thumbnail are effective going to make Wikipedia an online map searching
facility.
I think this is missing the point, and looking for an excuse not to
have the article.
It's not "indiscriminate information" at all, but a relevant article
on a topic with relevant information to someone looking up that topic
at the correct page name for that topic.
Would it be more useful to a reader looking up the locality in
question than no article at all? I'd say it obviously would.
- d.