[WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty

[Ken Arromdee]

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
>> I never understood, why does notability require a reliable source anyway?
> Doesn't - urban myth put about by people with a kindergarten version of
> logical positivism. But no reliable sources means nothing can actually
> be said in an article that has any content. "X is famous for being
> famous" - we get round to deleting articles like that.

No reliable sources *for notability* doesn't mean that nothing can be said in
the article.  The restrictions on reliable sources for notability are stricter
than the restrictions on reliable sources for article content.  Notability
requires that each individual source has significant coverage, and is limited
to secondary sources only.  Article content allows you to take information
from multiple sources each of which only has a small amount of coverage, and
it is not limited to secondary sources (in fact, under some circumstances
you can even use material written by the subject).