[WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

[charles matthews]

 "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