Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
For what value of notable? If "notable" means it's been the primary subject of a few reliable secondary sources, which seems like a reasonable definition, then that should not happen. I've said before, I'm all for a contextual definition of reliable.
Thus the problem. If a "notable" thing is not the SUBJECT of multiple reliable secondary sources, then our guidelines are improper and need to be adjusted. I mapped out a few examples at WP:N a while back, and a lot of people poo-poohed it, but it's an interesting exercise to recap some of them here for people who didn't watch the page:
[[Ern Westmore]] - Oscar-winning makeup artist, second generation of the famed Westmore family, had his own television show. My research - extensive for a non-wiki project I'm working on, but not *highly* extensive (local news reports, etc) - does not uncover him as THE SUBJECT of multiple secondary sources. Many independent mentions in articles and books, but never as the subject, and the best source I've found about him so far was written by his brother, which calls into question "independent." Does this mean our general idea of "notability" is working, or not?
[[Jordanhill railway station]] - a favorite of many who question our standards, I'm not sure if there's "multple, reliable secondary sources" that have the station as the subject.
[[Mom and Dad]] - A "classic" exploitation film that was added to the National Film Registry. A troubling case - it *may* have been the subject of one article in Reason Magazine (I think it's more about the producer, but it's a reasonable disagreement that's not really relevant given the rest), but is merely mentioned in passing in a number of texts about exploitation filmmaking. The reviews and press it got during its heyday was almost entirely self-created by the producer and could not realistically be called independent. The film was the third highest grossing film of the 1940s and is notable enough for the US government (who, by the way, doesn't know what the ending of the film in its vault is - I've asked - just to give an idea about this film), but not technically "notable" enough for Wikipedia.
[["She Shoulda Said 'No'!"]] - If "Reefer Madness" is the apex of pot films, SSSN is probably on the b-list. The story that inspired it got more press than the film itself, and the film was a dismal failure the first few times it was sent out. It's still the lead actress's most infamous turn, it was important enough to be featured in a series by the de facto expert on exploitation filmmaking (although he allegedly helped with the presentation of it and made a heap of money from it once he got his hands on it), the same situation as "Mom and Dad" applies. Not quite the shining star that "Mom and Dad" was, but still noteworthy - just not enough for Wikipedia.
There's also plenty of the Rambot-style articles for small townships, etc. I'm really only scraping my contributions more than anything else, and it's worth mentioning that three of those have ended up on the main page and two are rated as "Good Articles," and one could be a serious FA candidate with some extra work that I simply won't be doing at this point.
The problem is that the entire process is polluted by crap like longcat, limecat, Brian Peppers, and determined efforts by fans of each and every anime, cartoon series, reality show, to have an article on every single tiny facet of every single episode of the object of their obsession.
It is very hard to pull out the god ones from the endless torrent of crap. And the judgment of good is in any case not objective, since you like things that I don't and - I am sure - vice versa. Maybe you think we can do without an article on every single baroque composer.
On the contrary. We can have both, and we can have standards. The issue is that we need to have senisble standards, and we clearly lack that. Phil Sandifer is so completely on target with his commentary that last few days, and we'd be very smart to listen to him.
-Jeff