[WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields

[Ken Arromdee]

On Sat, 12 May 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
> > Can anyone actually derive Notability from neutrality, verifiability
> > and no original research in elegant and obvious steps? Or work toward
> > this?
> Well, let's take a stab here.
> 2. From NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." If
> the only source we have is first-party, the article will be inherently
> biased, as it is nearly impossible to write fairly and neutrally about
> oneself.
etc.

This reminds me of why Sherlock Holmes deductions don't work in the real
world.  Holmes makes a plausible-sounding deduction that completely ignores
the fact that each step is not 100% certain, and the uncertainty accumulates
from step to step.  If you string together ten steps, each of which is 90%
certain, your result will be useless.

Each of your steps is true most of the time, but occasionally not true (you
even had to admit it in the one quoted above, by adding the word "nearly").
The derivation won't work, for the same reason that Holmes won't work.