Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Wikipedia painted itself into this corner.
Indeed, said corner being #5 website in the world according to recent Comscore figures. The onus is still on those who think the system is broken. ("Notability" has always been a broken concept, but the real question is whether the system as a whole is broken, rather than whether individual subjective judgements always agree with the result of deletion processes.)
<snip>
I proposed a change to the guideline, a special provision, that *generally* a recognized national member society of a notable international society would be notable. If you know the notability debates, you can anticipate the objections. "Notability is not inherited."
Indeed, it isn't. Some of the more high-profile associated topics of notable topic X can be mentioned in the article on X, but that doesn't mean they are all worth a separate article. Such decisions should go case-by-case, but in general terms they are about structuring of content, rather than permissible content. [[Mary Ball Washington]], mother of George Washington, gets an article (not very substantial); her mother doesn't. I don't see that "recognized national" is a very different attribute from "notable", but certain office-holders might be considered worth an article "ex officio" (general notability doesn't recognise anything ex officio, I think, but arguably more special guidelines could.)
<snip>
Charles