Wikipedia talk:Availability

Well, as I noted here I have serious objections about equating presence of sources with notability. It looks as we have utterly diverging opinions on what the problem with the current notability guideline is. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, my entire point is that it shouldn't matter what you think is notable, this is a standard for what we can include free from people's personal ideas about what is notable, since those only seem to confuse the issue. We have a bias as far as sources are available and people are interested in writing the articles, but we needn't impose additional selective pressure.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This has the same problems as notability: it assumes that you can't have enough sources without having "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other". --NE2 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

An alternative
If you're watching, I'm trying to push an alternative to an all-encompassing notability guideline at Article inclusion. Some input would be great. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)