Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
"It's a logical extension of this that we write or don't write about something based upon the amount of sourcing available." No, it is not a logical extension. We are concerned about whether we write or not. We could use your criteria, or we could use another criteria (sic!). I say we write about something that is notable. We need to define that properly.
Sourcing and notability are distinct criteria, though there is considerable overlap. Sourcing lends itself more easily to definition than notability, even if there remains considerable difference about what sources may be reliable. Notability (both for articles and content in articles) remains a completely subjective basis. Any definition should be inclusionary in the form, "Xxxx is notable if it meets ONE of these criteria." This would be followed by a list. If it is not on the list it MAY be non-notable, and the person proposing to include the article or material would have the burden of establishing notability. He needs to be given the opportunity to do so.
If something is not notable, such as a very junior soccer team, we do not write an article on it, even if there are lots of sources for some reason. I'm not striving for completeness. I'm striving to be encyclopedic.
Completenes and being encyclopedic are not mutually exclusive. Why should we have a rule against junior soccer teams? Why make the prejudicial determination that team is not notable for the simple reason that it is a junior soccer team? Nobody is going to insist that you write about them. Why should you have the right to micromanage what someone else does?
Ec