William Pietri wrote:
So wouldn't every new subject-specific guideline be inevitably seen by one-size-fits-all types as another lowering of the standard, a breach through which ten thousand non-notable items will flow?
Yes. The problem, of course, is that those pushing for the one-size-fits-all are generally the deletionist types, and furthermore see no value in saying that something is "notable" without fitting that criteria.
I mean, I don't want to use strong offensive language to describe the mentality, but it's all that comes across. The list I gave earlier this week is an excellent example of where a one-size-fits-all mentality fails in terms of filmmaking:
1) The "one-size-fits-all" mentality says that a film is only "notable" if numerous items have "noted" it specifically as the subject of its pieces.
2) The "subject specific" mentality says that not ALL films are inherently notable, but certain aspects of a film, based on various possibilities including attention, who's making it, if it wins awards, distribution, etc, make a film "notable."
My two personal examples involve b-movie style exploitation films, "Mom and Dad" and "She Shoulda Said No." Most people in group #1 agree that both of these films are "notable," based on their importance to the genre and the attention they recieved, none of it reaching specific "is the subject" standard. Generally speaking, every person in group #2 will agree that both films are "notable" due to awards, distribution, associations, etc.
Now, what's the problem here? Group one is totally willing to make an exception for something it "knows" is "notable" there, but will not make that exception for something of similar "notability" in other areas, such as a business or a person or a musician, often meaning that otherwise useful "notable" information fails to get included. Group two knows that a line in the sand is pretty much the best way to keep the crap out while including necessary (and perhaps important) information. They also know that some marginal information ''may'' get in, but it's a small price to pay for the breadth of information it provides.
Does group two's approach always work? Well, no - see our AfDs/DRVs on [[Emmalina]] or [[Gregory Kohs]] for more recent examples (both of which, BTW, meet BOTH standards). But, generally speaking, it HAS worked, and has worked fine until group one decided that their way was best and started pushing it more. Not that anything was necessarily broken, but hey.
So now, a "notability" situation that was workable, but tenuous and recieved a minority of complaints, is being overburdened by an underthought, unrepresentative entity that's causing more problems than it's worth - we're the laughingstock of internet communities, we get criticised in the mainstream for our inconsistencies, and few who aren't involved truly understand it anyway (and, judging by many AfD/DRV comments, there's a significant chunk of people who ARE involved who truly understand it).
With the exception of people, in which there's a historical pool of tens of billions, at worst we end up with a working finite pool of possible articles, of which a very small percentage ever meet the standard to become an article, and that's even if anyone bothers to make them to begin with (for instance, unless I decide to heavily contribute again, I can provide a list of 100 articles that are unlikely to be made before the end of 2007. No one - literally - has shown any interest in the specific areas in the year plus I've been working on them, and Wikipedia's star can't get much higher). The worries that you state - "ten thousand non-notable items will flow" - is completely unfounded, unlikely, and possibly impossible. Unless, of course, someone believes that an unreviewed film mentioned in a couple books and two newspaper articles, never as "the subject", is "non-notable." In that case, perhaps one has to wonder if they have the best interests of the project at heart.
-Jeff