[WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty

[Ken Arromdee]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
> 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.

In practice, guidelines end up having the same effect as policies: anyone
who can quote them in a dispute that is anywhere near close always wins.
Policies don't appreciably differ from guidelines in this respect.

> 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.

In the very example I'm bringing up, the notability guidelines *were*
interpreted as a necessary condition.  Since the article failed to satisfy
them, it was deleted for lack of notability.

And I'd wager that notability is pretty much always used this way.