User talk:RoySmith/Three best sources/notes

The THREE source standard

 * Lately, I've come to realize that there's an even deeper misunderstanding here. This was never intended to set a standard that three good sources is either a necessary or sufficient condition for a topic to be considered notable.

The standard for notable is (usually) the WP:GNG. WP:THREE is a good standard for asking others to re-evaluate whether the topic meets the WP:GNG, after it was previously decided (whether at AfD or AfC) to not meet it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure how to parse that, but let me give an example. If you apply to be admitted to an art school, they'll ask you for a portfolio.  Rather than give them a dump of every artistic work you've ever created, you'll curate a small collection of what you consider your best efforts, and they'll judge you on that.  That's sort of the idea behind THREE.  I'm asking you to curate a short list of the best sources, and I'll judge notability based on those.  There's nothing magic about exactly three; it just seemed like a reasonable number.
 * Not that I'm comparing myself to Moses, but I can just imagine he came down off the mountain and said to his tribe, "Hey guys, I'm told we're not supposed to eat vultures because they eat dead animals and that can make you sick. We  pretty much knew that already but now it's written in stone".  Today, 5000-some-odd years in, we're arguing about whether ostriches and cormorants are like vultures or not and we seem to have forgotten that the original idea was not to eat stuff that made you sick.  Apologies to my more orthodox friends for my decidedly unorthodox view of kashrut. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How to parse my brief comment? Yeah, it was brief.  I link WP:THREE a lot, and I am concerned that you might think that I contribute to pushing it as de factor policy.  I think it has become de factor policy, not as a requirement for establishing notability, but as a requirement for being entertained a review of a prior AfD decision.  Maybe AfC REJECTION too. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're one of the few people I see using it in the way it was intended. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)