From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

source to save for history section. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Notability?

What's the argument for notability? Is being on a national register sufficient here, is the register sufficiently exclusive that being registered is notable? Is being a subject of local urban renewal international notability? Can someone clarify? Fifelfoo ( talk) 04:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply

It's been established via past discussions that nearly all NRHPs are inherently notable. – Juliancolton |  Talk 05:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Not in anything under WP:Notability. 80,000 inherently notable encyclopedic entries? And "Nearly all" is not all. So where's the policy or the discussion? Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
To expand, checking on your assertion through the project's discussions rather than Wikipedia's notability policies, the archives from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places demonstrate internal group-think; and begin by making claims such as you did that a previous consensus was achieved within wikipedia; further, the two cases cited where review external to the project occured ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_F._Miller_House) and ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abbeville_Opera_House) make a seriously flawed claim that the grounds for US government registration are identical with encyclopedic notability. Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
See this, which is explicit on the point. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

source to save for history section. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Notability?

What's the argument for notability? Is being on a national register sufficient here, is the register sufficiently exclusive that being registered is notable? Is being a subject of local urban renewal international notability? Can someone clarify? Fifelfoo ( talk) 04:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply

It's been established via past discussions that nearly all NRHPs are inherently notable. – Juliancolton |  Talk 05:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Not in anything under WP:Notability. 80,000 inherently notable encyclopedic entries? And "Nearly all" is not all. So where's the policy or the discussion? Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
To expand, checking on your assertion through the project's discussions rather than Wikipedia's notability policies, the archives from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places demonstrate internal group-think; and begin by making claims such as you did that a previous consensus was achieved within wikipedia; further, the two cases cited where review external to the project occured ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_F._Miller_House) and ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abbeville_Opera_House) make a seriously flawed claim that the grounds for US government registration are identical with encyclopedic notability. Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
See this, which is explicit on the point. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook