Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
No, no, no, a thousand times no. Wikipedia is an
encyclopaedia, a
tertiary source, a distillation of secondary sources, not a publisher
of first instance.
And no one is REALISTICALLY disagreeing with this. Something can be a
tertiary distillation without REQUIRING "multiple, non-trivial, secondary
sources" for inclusion. Don't set up an argument I'm not making.
[[Ern
Westmore]] - Oscar-winning makeup artist, second generation of the
famed Westmore family, had his own television show. My research -
extensive for a non-wiki project I'm working on, but not *highly*
extensive (local news reports, etc) - does not uncover him as THE SUBJECT
of multiple secondary sources. Many independent mentions in articles and
books, but never as the subject, and the best source I've found about him
so far was written by his brother, which calls into question
"independent." Does this mean our general idea of "notability" is
working, or not?
It means you haven't yet found the sources. There will be sources.
There will be, for example, the citations from the Academy Awards,
describing his work. Go to the library, look in Halliwell and other
film guides. Look in the trade magazines for the film industry. Not
on the net? Who cares.
No, it means that it's highly likely they don't exist. Your assumption
that they do when I can tell you first hand that they so far don't don't
in ways Wikipedia requires is coming from a place where the effort hasn't
been made. I've taken more time than I should looking for information on
this guy - it's not there in the way we allegedly want it.
There seems to be an informal agreement that census
data counts for
places.
An informal agreement that doesn't reflect reality, though. It's only an
agreement until people who disagree come along.
My view is that we should change the subject-specific
notability
guidelines to be an indication of the types of sources which are
considered reliable for that type of content. But to say something is
notable when it plainly has not been noted may be to misunderstand the
definition of notability, in terms of an encyclopaedia.
Our views are somewhat similar in the first half, but not in the second.
Things are encyclopedic without being "notable," and our "notability"
guidelines do a piss-poor job reflecting that in many important cases.
-Jeff