I believe that the idea of "notability" is being abused to remove controversial articles: it is impossible to prove that a subject is notable to you, and you can ignore whether it may be notable to someone else. Jimmy is quoted as saying that the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, which is why we have the following, many of which are not notable in themselves: * A thousand articles on each of the top 1000 asteroids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asteroids_%281-1000%29 * Every single episode of the Simpsons, and many other less notable TV shows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Simpsons_episodes * Articles on different shades of blue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_blue Examples of abuse? * We have articles on hundreds of student newspapers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_student_newspapers But one in particular is singled out for removal on grounds of notability, presumable because of its controversial associations: Pensée, a short-lived student newspaper from the 1970s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9e_%28Immanuel_Velikovsky_Reconsidere… * We have articles on some of the most bizarre, unproven, and pseudoscientific theories, eg. Time Cube, Eloptic energy, and Welteislehre. But the article on the "Electric universe (concept)" was removed also on the grounds of notability (and other reasons) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electric_unive… Yet the concept is readily verifiable (my comments were removed from the AfD, and placed n the discussion page). *We have articles on all manner of people, from cranks to presidents. But the article on "Ralph Juergens" was removed on the grounds of his non-notability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ralph_Juergens However, he is notable in the "Velikovsky affair", has written articles, etc. By point is not to specifically argue for the inclusion of these articles, but that to suggest, for example, that "Pensée" is less notable than asteroid #812, shows that notability is a subjective criteria influenced by popularity, and is being abused as such. Wikipedia is supposed to be the "sum of all human knowledge", described from a neutral point of view, whose criteria for inclusion is verifiability. Minority views can receive (detailed) attention on pages specifically devoted to them. The examples I gave are all well-noted (verifiable). I agree that you might not necessarily find them notable (popular), but is that a reason to exclude them from readers who are unable to judge for themselves? Regards, Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com