[WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty

[Charles Matthews]

Ken Arromdee wrote:
> 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).
>
>   
You are paraphrasing from [[Wikipedia:Notability]]. However, as is 
common enough in this (endless, unresolved) discussions, you are not 
doing so accurately enough. Firstly, [[Wikipedia:Notability]] is only a 
guideline, not an official policy for anything. Secondly, you are 
paraphrasing from the detailed explanation of the first section, but 
missing the essential (really) point. Which is that "If a topic has 
received significant coverage in reliable sources  that are independent 
of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a 
stand-alone article" is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one. The 
nutshell says "A topic that is suitable for inclusion and has received 
significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent 
of the subject is presumed  to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a 
stand-alone article".  In other words certain topics pass. This 
criterion isn't saying for sure what is not notable.

Admittedly the rest of the article is badly drafted enough so that the 
confusion is somewhat forgiveable.

Anyway, recall what notability is for. We use it as a rather crude tool 
to prise people away from their initial view of what topics should be 
included, which is typically subjective. And then when they have taken 
the point that there should be something "objective", we move to saying 
notability depends on available information. So really notability only 
functions as a stepping stone across the river: once an editor is on the 
side of developing content by referencing and thinking in those terms, 
we can talk to them as colleagues. (Well, doesn't always go that way.) 
But my point about "logical positivism" was based on that conception, to 
the extent that people who really believe that an abstract "protocol" 
could be used to replace dickering on about quite which RS might 
establish N are doomed to dickering, but at the level of abstract 
guidelines rather than at AfD. Sufficient conditions for inclusion are 
cleaner, but (for example) tend to reinforce systemic bias problems. To 
the extent that you phrased your comment in terms of necessity, you have 
an abstract point.

Charles