User talk:RogDel/Significant coverage not required

Re:Three Blind Mice band

Just because Clinton's high school band "Three Blind Mice" doesn't get a Wikipedia article, it doesn't mean the band is excluded from Wikipedia. The band could still appear in Clinton's article in his high school education section.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 02:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually the band does have an article: 3 Kings (jazz trio). Unsurprisingly, there is actually other coverage of the band. That said "it could be merged" is not a particularly satisfactory approach because deletionists would trollishly argue that it must not be merged because it is not notable. One does actually encounter that sort of devious wikilawyering. James500 (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Some ideas along these lines

RogDel et al - I’ve been thinking about this topic a bit lately - what are other forms of notability that would not compromise the integrity of an encyclopedia? They’re slightly different than yours but would be curious as to your thoughts. These are rough ideas minus implementation details. I’m hoping for responses that are more constructive than captious.

(1) Something that is can be proven true in something like Coq or an equivalent that has a non-trivial implication. This meshes well with WP:V. (2) Notability established by a proof-of-work threshold with known data lineage tied to a verifiable identity.

Expanding on point (2) - I believe what many people object to is the perception of a gate keeping function of peer-reviewed journals and green WP:RSPSOURCES. This is a fair criticism because we know who is running these periodicals and they’re mammals like the rest of us. They are sometimes wrong, sometimes biased, not always meritocratic and most importantly they have incentives to downplay, obfuscate and ignore these failings for reasons of finance and prestige in competitive markets.

There’s something like a craving for recognition of a thing when those two kinds of institutions won’t cover that thing.

With a hypothetical system implementing (2) you would be able to verify a number of people who lend their real world identity to a thing with something like KYC where we could say we have a nearly perfect way of verifying that a real person is behind an attestation of notability. Then that person would have to complete some kind of proof-of-work scenario to demonstrate that they put a lot of work and thought in to this attestation of a thing’s notability (this could be something like a unique essay with proven data provenance (lineage). Then we pick a magic number, maybe say Dunbar’s number (150) as a threshold and if something meets that we consider it notable. The proof-of-work/KYC/provenance system will make it verifiable.

What do you think? -Scarpy (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)