2009/9/22 Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>om>:
> I seem to recall that in the notability policy
there is also scope for
> comprehensiveness. That is, if a certain number of a given category of
> entities is denoted "notable", then we include articles about *all* of
> them, for comprehensiveness.
OK, but take the argument that there aren't so
many ski runs in
Australia, and transfer it to some micro-sub-genre of heavy metal:
"There just aren't so many perishthrashglam bands here, so we think it's
just fine to have articles on all of them". Doesn't look so good.
I think we can easily distinguish, though; the
notability-by-association thing really needs most of the set to be
desirable topics for articles (*most* ski runs are interesting, or at
least let us assume they are for this discussion!) and for that set to
be well-defined (you can always tell if a ski run is in Australia or
The perishthrashglam bands are both a) generally uninteresting, and b)
ill-defined; we won't have articles on most bands defined as part of
that genre, and we won't ever be able to say "the genre consists
solely of these seventy-nine bands and no-one else".
- Andrew Gray