Well, since we're making a list, individual bootlegs don't need to be notable themselves, but I know what you mean, we need some standards for inclusion. As with the sketchy nature of bootlegs themselves, we need to make sure we included only actual bootlegs (I mean "bootleg" in the traditional sense of the word). Generally, I would say if we can find enough information to write a short paragraph or so on it, then let's include it. Most of the sources for this information is going to be found on personal sites of collectors and not really verifiable, so I would say for every inclusion we should have at least two independent sources. Unless... you got a book on Who bootlegs. I tried to track down my friend's, but he couldn't find it. (

I'm sure you've found these sites already, but these are what I've been using.
 http://thewho.net/bootlegs/html/lp_list.html <- A little overwhelming at first, I know, but has the most bootlegs, including obscure variations.
 http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/who/boots/index.html <- Hasn't been updated in forever. Mentions The Who: The Illustrated Discography as his source, which I believe is what my friend's book is called.

I still need to do some research, before I starting putting together an article, so feel free to start it. I'm gonna try to get a hold of that book. I might just go an buy myself a copy.
Another thing we should include is this. -