User:Tigraan/Reliable sources challenge

The reliable source challenge aiming to determine the notability of a subject in the context of deletion discussions is as follows: "Provide at most three reliable sources that deal with the subject in detail and establish its notability, going by Wikipedia's definition of the terms "reliable sources" and "notability"."

Explanation
It is common for proponents of fringe and unnotable scientific theories, or other subjects, to create Wikipedia articles on those theories. For some of those articles, there are large numbers of references. None of these references really support inclusion, usually because they fail to be either reliable, independent, or addressing the subject in detail; but the sheer number of them, and the difficulties to access them (paywalled journals, offline sources) or to read them (very technical language specific to domain specialists) make it unpractical for a single editor to read them all. See WP:BOMBARD.

The idea of that challenge is that the sheer number of sources cannot make up for their quality. An editor supporting inclusion of content has the WP:BURDEN to prove that content is notable, and if a significant fraction of the 100+ references are indeed reliable, independent, and significant coverage, then a small subset of them should be enough to pass the notability bar.

Why this challenge?
AfD discussions where proponents of fringe theories participate often go like this (best-case scenario): "Delete as WP:FRINGE, per WP:N. No WP:RS. WP:WOTTA! --Established editor
 * Do not delete. This is a notable subject. It is a groundbreaking theory that deserves a lot of attention. It appeared around 1211 when... (followed by a big wall of text) --New user
 * We are not here to evaluate the merits of the theory, but its notability. Please read WP:OR and WP:N. --Established editor
 * I added 50 references to the article. Those are fine sources. It would be a shame to delete because... (followed by a big wall of text) --New user
 * Meh. I have not looked any of these, but half look like blogs, so I will not bother with the other half. --Established editor"

The discussion can easily get heated and produce nothing of value while the veteran editor tries to explain (increasingly impatiently) that just a few sources are needed, that the veteran editor cannot be expected to read all sources or even understand a single of them, etc.

The challenge is a way, in one single one-line (maybe two-line) comment, to simultaneously:
 * 1) Link the most relevant Wikipedia policies for the new user to read if they so wish;
 * 2) Restrict the ability to respond with an unreadable wall of text;
 * 3) Engage the new user with a precise request which, if honored, guarantees a "fair trial" to the article they wish to keep.

What the challenge does not mean
It does not mean fringe theories have a presumption of non-notability. Nothing is notable by default, but notable fringe theories should be covered. That a theory is fringe, i.e. non-mainstream, is rarely contested; the question is whether it is notable fringe.

It does not mean an AfD nominator for a fringe theory, or other editors taking part, are exempt of WP:BEFORE step D.

It does not mean that if the article is kept, only the sources that established notability should be kept. For instance, page about companies often have references or external links to the company's webpage, even that is not an independent sources. A notable fringe theory's important scientific papers should be cited, even if those papers have been heavily criticized (or ignored) by the relevant experts of the field.