On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
Rather misses the points that (a) the "sources" metric for notability is horribly bad, in that "famous for being famous" rates much higher than "made an obscure medical advance that only saves thousands of lives a year", unless you work on it, and (b) notability is a really bad concept for determining inclusion, except that we have no snappy replacement. Inclusion is what matters, ultimately. "Voting on notability" is obviously evil piled on evil, but somehow the double negative has worked for us.
Another point: I've never understood (at least since starting to think about it) why notability should have anything to do with reliable sources. It seems to me that what we really want is *widely used* sources. If something receives heavy coverage in an unreliable source, it makes no sense not to include it.