Wikipedia talk:Notability/Proposed

message: To carry over a discussion from the main page, 
:It is also unclear whether you mean that 
::A/ Anything with two non trivial RSs is Notable AND that anything without them but which fits the other criteria is N, or 
::B/ Anything thats fits our general feelings about N is N, and that in general such subjects with have 2 RSs which is  an indication that it will likely fit our standards.  or 
::C/ Anything that fits our general feelings or specific standards is N, EXCEPT for those things that do not fit our feelings or standards, AND that the presence of sources is a rough guide for determining which way it should go. 
:As I read the text, it says C, and I do not know if you want it to say that. It seems clear that C makes the entire section about sourcing subsidiary, whereas in the past most WPedians seem to have thought it central.  Before I change it to fit whatever I might like it to mean--which might be a counter-proposal rather than an edit--I would want to know what you yourself intend it to mean, so that we have your proposal understood correctly. DGG 03:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I read your question correctly, I was originally aiming for A.  FYI - I went ahead and moved my proposal, as modified, to Wikipedia:Notability/Proposed.  Edit or counter-propose away.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

message: I had thought you meant C. :)
I do not think we presently do anything like A. Here are just some frequent instances where 2 sources are not considered enough (and I dont want to emphasize the details of any particular one of them.
#non-professional league athletes. Any number of stories covering the feats of a semi-pro footballer will not make him N.
#minor performers. Any number of fan stories someone who has not yet actually recorded an album will not make him N.
#relatives. Any number of gossip stories about a notable person's son or daughter does not make him N.
#local schools. Even if the local newspaper ran a full column each year about the principal of the local elementary school, it doesnt make him N unless there is some specific thing about him or his school. 
I think what we say now is 
::D/ Anything with two non trivial etc sources is N, provided that it also fits within some common-sense rules about what deserves non-trivial sources (and with exceptions for some instances where we need to be fuzzy about the 2 RS-- and I think the proposal does deal with that part. 
DGG 03:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right that the language did effectively propose C, though I hadn't analyzed it in your exact terms.  Are you advocating approach D?--Kubigula (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not necessarily advocating approach D. I was saying that approach D is what current WP practice actually is, & I gave a few examples. I don't think it's logical, I don't think it's consistent, but I think that this is what actually is taking place now. It has the advantage that it's familiar, we know how to work around the limitations, and it adapts to shifting consensus and interests. However, it does require a great deal of continuing unproductive argument, and a perceived lack of fairness. Anything with human judgement involved will do that.  DGG 04:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: continuing:

message: Do we want to just straight-up say that, "notability is subjective — this guideline just describes the current general consensus; for specific articles, consensus may differ or arrive at different interpretations of this guideline"? Sancho 16:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjectivity 

message: Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Notability. --Barberio 11:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceedingly bad idea