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
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?