User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Point system for notability

I'm afraid that any point-based system would be a textbook example of bureaucracy and instruction creep. Any strict metric is going to be arbitrary (and will likely cause lengthy debate about where exactly the strict metric should lie) so I don't really see how this proposal will help.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply I see it as useful since its more objective than any other proposal. Some want minimal rules for Wikipedia, others prefer rigorous guidelines, so that Wikipedia has a uniform look and feel. I tend side with more rules early on, to follow when there is a conflict, it reduces the back and forth edit wars and saves time and effort. The rules only need to be invoked when there is a conflict. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply I think this would really open up the system to being "gamed," and may also introduce significant bias against notable but old subjects. Tarinth 19:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem
Okay, first off, this knocks out about 450 Pokemon, so you would have to go through hell to get over that. Then, you've knocked out almost all the highways in the world, so you'll have to do the same again, and of course there's the issue that you've knocked out almost everything which is of local interest only, or happened before the advent of mass media. For instance, let's take the Battle of the Allia, leading to the Gauls overrunning Rome. The mass media has never bothered to cover that, so the battle has no category 1 sources. Oops. -Amarkov blahedits 20:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment This was intended for biographical notability. Certain categories of events, people, places, and things are given automatic entry. Every city and town is alloted automatic entry. Every governor and mayor of a large city, and the list grows every day. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Um... okay then. We've lost Pliny the Elder, Julia Caesar, and possibly Aristotle. -Amarkov blahedits 17:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * all named are in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and a dozen other reference works that would be in tier 1, and all are referenced in hundreds or articles in the New York Times; and BBC. Whats the point your trying to make?
 * The problem is, the proposal doesn't say that, and neither does policy. Being referenced is explicitly not enough to get an article. And even if my examples are wrong, strict numbers invariably run up against something that just barely fails it, but still should be included. -Amarkov blahedits 16:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the real problem I see here is that this proposal is in strict contradiction of the current policy of the primary notability criterion. It states that A single major work is enough, like a published biography is enough to establish notability. Your system requires at least 4. You're going to have to tone down the requirements because they are approximately 4 times more strict than current policy. McKay 20:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)