Content deleted Content added
m |
|||
Line 34: :::::Are you disputing the veracity of statement which you keep trying to remove? It seems to me that you accept the statement to be true, but you think that such truth is being "abused" by keeping it in this article? Please could you explain further, as i do not understand your logic. :::::Anyway, if your primary goal is to establish the term Southern Levant as a strong alternative name for the region, I don't see how this sentence that you keep trying to remove makes a difference either way. Just because a term is new, doesn't devalue it as such. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 00:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC) :::::: In addition to the policy on Original Research, please see [[Wikipedia:GOOGLE#Uses_of_search_engine_tests]] 'Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none, for reasons discussed further down this page. Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about [[WP:N|notability]], without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results.' and 'A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. Attention should instead be paid to what (the books, news articles, scholarly articles, and web pages) is found, and whether they actually ''do'' demonstrate notability or non-notability, case by case. Hit counts have always been, and very likely always will remain, an extremely erroneous tool for measuring notability, and should not be considered either definitive or conclusive.' While this argument is not about notability per say, I feel these policies still apply. Please feel free to open a discussion on a noticeboard regarding the use of Ngrams on | |||