Login
Login

User:Hinduresci

{{quote|Now the challenge is to save Wikipedia and its promise of a free and open collection of all human knowledge amid the conquest of new and old television—how to collect and preserve knowledge when nobody cares to know. Television has even infected Wikipedia itself—today many of the most popular entries tend to revolve around television series or their cast.|Hossein Derakhshan (19 October 2017). [https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedias-fate-shows-how-the-web-endangers-knowledge/ How Social Media Endangers Knowledge]. Wired.}}

Image:Globespin.gif's English rendering is most outstanding.
(That's original research!)
2. "Hill's English rendering is most outstanding." — Bolle, UC Press.
(That's notability!)]]

Image:Proud graduates.jpg is rare. But that precise rarity does not amount to notability. Why not? Because although they are rare, they are not so rare. The rarity must be striking!]]

The idea that we must ration our pages and so consider Indologists on the curve is completely out of step with a paperless encyclopedia.  The bottom line here is that we must work to preserve the value that others have added to the encyclopedia.

:– Unscintillating (15 October 2017). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Douglas P. Hill: comment.

Is W. Douglas P. Hill notable? I know not. Is he alike the majority of writers or is he actually unlike them? It is obvious from the reliable (published) source(s) related to Hill that he is unlike not alike; for the majority of writers on this planet are not in any way described by reliable source(s) as to have begotten the most outstanding work of its kind, for instance. That is to say, Hill is evidently a rarity. Hill is, therefore, notable!

Put differently, it is virtually incontrovertible from the objective evidence at hand that Hill is not an everyday writer.
Remember! The proposition "Hill is not an everyday writer" is semantically equivalent to the following proposition: "Hill is a writer worth noting." Also remember! It is, in fact, not necessary at all for the significant coverage to exist in independent source(s); any reliable source should suffice; for the backbone of notability is "significance" (or rarity), not "significant coverage"; there is a difference!
Rarity, and rarity alone, implies notability. And rarity does not imply one and only. Rarity intimates minority.
The misconstruing of "significant coverage" as a rudiment of notability is nothing but an arrow straight into the heart of Wikipedia!
He who aspires to figure whether Hill, for instance, is notable, must ask himself this lone question: Is it objectively obvious that Hill is not akin to everyday writer? The affirmative answer must be perceived to betoken the ability of being noticed; while the dissenting one should hearten to contemplate the Baconian quotation: "They are ill discoverers that think there is no land, when they can see nothing but sea."
Why don't we look at it this way? Sooooo many mortals dwelling on our planet are authors of some sort; published, self-published, bloggers, etc. etc. How many of them would (or rather should) really ever expect even a single independent and reliable source to say that their work(s) are most outstanding from their discipline(s)? Very, very few; which suggests Hill is very, very notable!
In order to be deemed notable, Hill must stand out in the crowd of non-notables not notables.
Is it rare to be a bus conductor? Of course yes! Is every bus conductor, therefore, notable? Of course not! The rarity of being a bus conductor is born of the oddity of belonging to a particular profession; and since belonging to a particular profession is inevitably usual, it could be untangled that rarity born of inevitability is non-notable. In short, the usual unusual is void of notability, by definition.

A Doctor of Philosophy is rare. But that precise rarity does not amount to notability. Why not? Because although they are rare, they are not so rare. The rarity must be striking! The rarity must be compelling. The rarity itself must be worthy of notice.

:– Hinduresci (15 October 2017)



{{Userboxtop}}

{{User:UBX/hinduism}}

{{User wikipedia/Extended confirmed}}

{{User contrib|1000|Hinduresci}}

{{User:Ahunt/Pictures|19}}

{{User iar}}

{{User en-5}}

{{User degree/2 degrees}}

{{User wants you to cite}}

{{User:Penubag/templates/Userboxes/copyright}}

{{User Wikidata edit count|400}}

{{Userbox | border-c = #999 | border-s = 1 | id-c = #DDD | id-s = 14 | id-fc = black | info-c = #EEE | info-s = 8 | info-fc = black | id = Un-Gita | info = This editor is the author of [http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_of_Bhagavad-gita?oldid=5982758 The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita], not to be confused with [https://works.bepress.com/kedar_joshi/26/ The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita] | float = left }}

{{Userboxbottom}}

;Articles created

;Articles substantially contributed to

;Articles to be created

  • B. K. Chaturvedi (author) -- WP, [https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n88123767/ WorldCat Identities]; does not appear notable
  • J. C. Thomson -- The Bhagavad Gita
  • Robert E. Svoboda -- [http://www.drsvoboda.com/ website], [https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n82049897/ WorldCat Identities], [https://www.ramdass.org/featured-teacher-dr-robert-svoboda/ Featured Teacher: Dr. Robert Svoboda] at ramdass.org
  • The Bhagavadgītā (Hill Book) -- [http://www.mlbd.com/BookDecription.aspx?id=7660 website], [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/639952464 oclc]
  • The Mahabharata (Menon Book) -- WP, [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040613/spectrum/book7.htm Review], [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/191858169 oclc]
  • W. J. Johnson -- [https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n93113252/ WorldCat Identities]

;Books created

;Pages created on the English Wikiquote

;Pages substantially contributed to on the English Wikiquote

;Pages to be created

;Galleries created on Wikimedia Commons

;No. of items created on Wikidata

  • 24