"Steve Block" wrote
It attempts to close the door on the possibility of
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.