"Steve Block" wrote
It attempts to close the door on the possibility of allowing wikipedians to decide what is and isn't notable, something I believe is against both the original research and POV policies. We should seek to summarise claims of importance, where those claims are verifiable.
Err ... why? This may be what we resort to in some cases (garage bands). But it is a bad idea in other cases (e.g. academics). And I think we all should be allowed to express opinions on notability. In some areas, for example the arts, poetry, if you go by tallying up awards and honours and suchlike 'objective' credits, you will only reproduce the contours of the 'academic art' of the time. Thus missing what is coming up, for example.
Further, there could hardly be a better example of how 'original research', launched by Jimbo as a way to deal with crank theories, has been spandexed as an argument.
Charles