[WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty

[Charles Matthews]

Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, David Goodman wrote:
>   
>> The present rules at Wikipedia are so many and
>> contradictory that it is possible to construct an argument with them to
>> justify  almost any decision--even without using IAR.
>>     
>
> I'm trying to figure out if you're arguing with me.  You're right, of course,
> the rules are completely messed up.
>
> But I think it's fair to say that "notability rules are only a sufficient
> condition and it's possible for something to not satisfy the rules and still
> be notable" is a *very* unpopular position, to the point where it may as well
> not be true.
>   
It's the difference between "never say never" and "never say "never say 
never""? This is after all what IAR is there for.

Failure of the General Notability Guideline to give the right result may 
indicate that a special guideline might be more helpful. If the work of 
creating such special guidelines has gone about as far as people want, 
and if certain classes of information (such as what is happening on the 
"street" or in places where the usual media don't document them) are 
excluded by consensus, and if "notability" is applied as a generic test 
to topics that (for example) don't have a WikiProject interested in 
arguing in other ways, then what you say may represent the simplest 
broad generalisation.

That's a few ifs and buts.

Charles