Talk:The Constitution of No Authority

Notability
, as of now, the article doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to warrant its own article. It can expand out summary style from No_Treason when the sourcing warrants the split. Please revert your edit. czar 16:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So you don't object to my moving any unique content from this article to the No Treason article, even though it's already getting pretty large? My concern, aside from the unique historic importance of this specific document over the rest of No Treason, is that when an article gets too big, we should split out the larger parts, regardless of whether they are specifically noteworthy. I've done or seen it done many times on large articles, when the subsection clearly does not deserve its own section, per se. — Kaz (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No objection to merger at all, though only the sourced stuff should be merged and there are better sources available on the topic (peer reviewed academic papers, mainly, or stuff published in journals rather than on advocacy sites). There's also nothing wrong with splitting out the content eventually (as I said, summary style), but that's almost always dependent on whether there are enough reliable, secondary sources to warrant it. czar  00:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)