WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
I'm not convinced that a property's mere
existence on the National Trust
website makes it "notable". We have many cases where things are mentioned
in this or that place and yet that thing is not "notable" the way we use the
word. It would be up to the author to explain why this particular property
is notable if any AfD were brought.
Why would it be listed in the National Trust if it's not notable. Your
use of the royal "we" is not sufficient for projecting your
idiosyncratic view of "notable" on the rest of us. Requiring the author
to explain why a property is notable makes it easier to have shifting
goalposts for notability to satisfy the AfD denizens.
With over six *million* books now scanned, I think it's a much harder cry to
claim that some thing *not citable in Google Books* is yet still notable.
I think six million books probably covers almost all territory that we want
to cover this decade. I'd have to be convinced as to why a person or
thing, which cannot be found there, is notable.
That speaks to a very narrow outlook on notability. I'm sure that there
is much which they have not yet scanned. I am a little more
discriminating than to believe yhat the two O's in Google's logo are two
moons to be kissed.
Ec