User:Randomran/analysis

Methodology:
 * Took every user that commented in "OPPOSE A.1"
 * Took every user that commented in "SUPPORT A.1.2"
 * Found the intersection of the two to find users who switched their opinion
 * Dropped errors -- people who commented in one or the other without voicing support or opposition

Not exact, but basically reflects the truth that less than 10 people changed their opinion based on the difference between A.1 and A.1.2. Reading their actual comments, it seems their concern was the indiscriminate nature of "a sub-article is notable when it extends one section of a notable parent article" versus the more discriminate "sub-articles of a notable parent topic are permissible when the same content could realistically be expected to appear in the parent topic's article, if length and structure were not an issue".

OPPOSE A.1

 * Aervanath
 * Alexf
 * Alvestrand
 * AndyJones
 * Angr
 * Arthur Rubin
 * Axl
 * B. Wolterding
 * Babakathy
 * Banime
 * BigDunc
 * Bignole
 * Binksternet
 * Bkonrad
 * Black Falcon
 * Blowdart
 * Captain panda
 * Captain-tucker
 * Charles Edward
 * Charles Matthews
 * Collectonian
 * Coren
 * Cricket02
 * Daedalus969
 * Dank55
 * Dave souza
 * Davewild
 * ddstretch
 * Deamon138
 * DGG
 * DoubleBlue
 * DrKiernan
 * EEMIV
 * Epicadam
 * Erik the Red 2
 * Ernestvoice
 * Eusebeus
 * Excirial
 * Explodicle
 * Fr33kman
 * Future Perfect at Sunrise
 * Gavin.collins
 * GeorgeLouis
 * Gnangarra
 * Goodraise
 * GRBerry
 * Greglocock
 * GregorB
 * Highwind888
 * Islander
 * Istvan
 * Itaqallah
 * Iterator12n
 * Jay32183
 * Jayron32
 * Jossi
 * Jrp
 * Judgesurreal777
 * Juliancolton
 * Karanacs
 * Kurykh
 * Kww
 * Lankiveil.
 * Marhawkman
 * Masem
 * Matthewedwards
 * Maxschmelling
 * Mr. Absurd
 * MSJapan
 * Mufka
 * Nagle
 * Nick Dowling
 * Nick Thorne
 * Ningauble
 * NJGW
 * Nsk92
 * Obina
 * Oren0
 * Orlady
 * Ottava Rima
 * Pagrashtak
 * Patar knight
 * Pee Tern
 * Pharmboy
 * Phil Sandifer
 * Philcha
 * PhilKnight
 * Phirazo
 * Protonk
 * Randomran
 * Raphaelmak
 * Ratarsed
 * RegentsPark
 * Reyk
 * RJC
 * Salix alba
 * Sam Blacketer
 * Scapler
 * Sephiroth BCR
 * Sgeureka
 * SilkTork
 * Smallbones
 * SMcCandlish
 * SP-KP
 * Spinningspark
 * Starblind
 * Stevenfruitsmaak
 * The Rogue Penguin
 * Themfromspace
 * Truthanado
 * Undead warrior
 * Warofdreams
 * Wrad
 * WVhybrid
 * Yobmod

SUPPORT A.1.2

 * 23skidoo
 * Admiral Norton
 * AlexTiefling
 * Aqwis
 * AstroHurricane001
 * BcRIPster
 * Bearian
 * Binksternet
 * Bkonrad
 * Casliber
 * Chrylis
 * Chubbles
 * D.c.camero
 * Davewild
 * Dbiel
 * erachima
 * Fabrictramp
 * Falcorian
 * Fordmadoxfraud
 * Greglocock
 * GregorB
 * Grue
 * Hans Persson
 * Haphazardjoy
 * Highwind888
 * Ingolfson
 * Istvan
 * Itub
 * Jaakobou
 * Jclemens
 * JoshuaZ
 * Marhawkman
 * Maunus
 * Mdwh
 * Mfield
 * Morphh
 * MrZaius
 * Nate1481
 * Ned Scott
 * Nergaal
 * Nifboy
 * Orlady
 * Pee Tern
 * Peregrine Fisher
 * Pharmboy
 * Phil Sandifer
 * Philosofool
 * R27182818
 * RJC
 * Royalbroil
 * S Marshall
 * SP-KP
 * Speedevil
 * Technopat
 * the_ed17
 * Vegaswikian
 * Verdatum
 * Waggers
 * WeisheitSuchen
 * Willscrlt
 * Wronkiew
 * Ynhockey
 * Zagalejo

SWITCHED FROM SUPPORT TO OPPOSE

 * Binksternet
 * Bkonrad
 * Davewild
 * Greglocock
 * GregorB
 * Highwind888
 * Istvan
 * Marhawkman
 * Orlady
 * RJC

ACTUAL COMMENTS

 * 1) Strong oppose. Notability should be established for any section regardless if it is within a larger article or spun out on its own. Binksternet (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) * Support. This allows lists like "Notable people who live in such and such place" which can get very long for populous places. Binksternet (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose -- far too broad in scope. older ≠ wiser 11:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) * Support Seems a most sensible approach and in my experience the most in line with general historical practices on Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 11:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Goes too far. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) * Support On balance ok. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose.Agree wirth 'where will it end' type arguments. For instance, Automotive suspensions are a notable subject, that article is easily referneced. Particular types of suispension, likewise. Particular implementations of particular suspensions, likewise. "My car has got a macpherson's strut" is not a suitable article. OK, maybe that was a bad example.Greg Locock (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) * Support Seems a reasonable approach, albeit no different to current policy. Greg Locock (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. If I understand correctly, this would warrant the creation of articles such as Hairstyles of Robert De Niro. GregorB (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) * Support. This is reasonable. As long as everything is encyclopedic and sourced, it doesn't really matter whether it's a standalone article or just a section. GregorB (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose in deference to A.1.2, this would by default confer notability from the Wikipedia itself, making notability rationale in effect a circular argument. István (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) *Support so long as the main article is referenced below the title - this allows a spot for overeffusive detail that would otherwise clutter the main article, but may, in some instances, be valuable to some users. One must distinguish between the two scopes of 1) verifiable facts and 2) notability of subject.  Subarticles do valuable service to main articles and should exist with 1) even though 2) may be lacking.  István (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Could be useful in some cases, but there is huge potential for a lot of useless, vaguely related material to be put onto Wikipedia. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) *Support Much better suggestion. Pretty much the same argument as Pharmboy. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) ** #Support As long as we are saying that "A subarticle's requirement for notability still exists, but is held to a lower standard as long as the primary article is verifiable and sourced" then I would agree that a somewhat lower standard is fine. Having NO sources would not be. If properly done, would be a benefit to the encyclopedia, making many articles more readable, while allowing you to drill down on specific facts. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose I support A.1.2 because I think it is important to encourage spin-outs, but I oppose policy A.1 because it would justify creation of articles about utterly ephemeral trivia. --Orlady (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) *Support It is critically important that Wikipedia policies allow the creation of spin-offs in order to prevent articles from becoming unduly large. It is also inevitable that some spin-offs will be lack stand-alone notability, but are important elements of the whole parent article. In order to foster the orderly splitting of large articles, it must be possible for some split-offs to exist that would not be individually notable. (For example, some of the fictional characters in Doonesbury probably are not notable by themselves, but others are. The quantity of content that ought to be included in articles about the characters is too large for a single article covering all Doonesbury characters. In order to allow/foster the maintenance of articles about particularly important characters, it becomes necessary to have articles about each of the individual characters.) However, the splitting of an article should not be allowed to justify long articles about non-notable topics. Accordingly, it is reasonable to judge the notability and scope of split-off articles on the basis of the question "Would this content be appropriate in a subsection of the parent article, if there were no practical constraints on article length?"--Orlady (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose - This would actually gut the notability requirement.  Friedrich Nietzsche warrants an article; the sex life of Friedrich Nietzsche does not, even though something might be mentioned about it in the main article.  Certain corporations might be notable; not everyone mentioned in the article about them is, but would now be — as would their mothers, siblings, and dogs, as they could be mentioned in the article that branched off from the initial one.  RJC  TalkContribs 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) * Support I believe this is what we do already. At any rate, it's how I have been dealing with subpages.  RJC  TalkContribs 17:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)