Surreptitiousness wrote:
As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction. Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself. But please don't protect "positions". We don;t need to restate [[WP:V]] for the umpteenth time, we already have it. We just need to say that there are bad articles and there are good articles, and mainly bad articles are bad due to style rather than substance. When there's no substance, it is usually easy to see and such articles with regards fiction are not a "problem" for notability to "cure", they are a "problem" which is already "cured" by a number of other policies. Notability on Wikipedia has become too restricting and from my view it is time to roll it back and let each subject area define its own guidance, because we don't have a one size fits all approach, as evinced by [[WP:BLP]]. Every subject area is afflicted by different issues, and the solutions to those issues also differ. If Wikipedia is to continue, it needs to recognise that fact, and would that we had the leadership to recognise, reflect and build accordingly. Otherwise, I fear Wikipedia will stagnate. The greatest asset Wikipedia has is adaptability. That adaptability is in danger of becoming stifled.
I don't really see what is going on there: but the essay seems to be saying that an article is acceptable if it meets fundamental content policy OR various other things, while I would think it acceptable if it meets fundamental content policy AND various things. Further, it doesn't do to mix up the status of an article and a topic. I wrote about this once (from a different angle): http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/149/charles-matthews-on-notability
Charles