In practice, it has generally been held that to demonstrate notability, multiple reliable sources should be available. That alleviates many practical problems, not least of which is that a single source may be biased, incomplete, contain inaccuracies, etc., and the use of multiple sources, especially cross-checked against one another, helps to fend off such issues.
If the GNG is worded in a confusing way such that people are believing from it that single-source articles are acceptable, it should be changed to make clear that they generally are not. Todd On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 9:20 AM Thad Guidry <thadmgui...@outlook.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > Just now, I listened in to the GLAM topic: "How to improve our work on > notability? Librarians' case" in the Wikimania 2024 day 3 session. > > I was shocked to hear of stories where well written articles were rejected > because of a so called "single source" conflation. > > I'd like to remind everyone and also point out that there's unclear > messaging happening and some administrators using the unclear messaging in > the WP:GNG as reasoning for well-written and single source cited articles. > This is what I posted in the chat during the session: > > ---- > THAD: > It seems like if a good case can be made that an article provides > additional structure for another topic that can be crosslinked to an > article, AND provide at least 1 source, it should be allowed. > I've heard that only a single source is often used to say "not notable > enough" for acceptance. > But there is indeed this clause in the WP:GNG, that says 1 source is > enough: > > "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in > quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected" > > I encourage any GLAM contributor to bring up that quote. This was solved > and agreed upon over 12 years ago. A single source is enough. > > The problem is that the original clause (which is still there) is > overshadowed by a previous sentence at the beginning of the WP:GNG saying: > > "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when > it has received 'significant coverage' in reliable sources ..." > > Note it says "significant coverage" in reliable sources. But that is > contradictory to the original clause where there is "no fixed number of > sources required". > > In my opinion, the phrase "significant coverage" should be removed from > the beginning of > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline > And thereby the original clause brings with it much more clear > understanding. > ---- > > What say we? > > Thad Guidry > user: thadguidry > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Y4PKFD6A4LOVZ6SICLSOKNSKFIR3RU4U/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4ZMGELXQWJXUBU3GWKLDSPXFKAJE3UIO/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
