Ken Arromdee wrote: The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical formula: sources *n / PI = notability. To take an obvious example. An article on an 18th church building, which has been created using a well-researched webpage from the church and perhaps some mention on the denomination's site, plus one brief mention on the site of the village in which it is situation, is deleted as "not notable" because it lacks "multiple third party sources". Yes, the sources we have are unlikely to be wrong about the architectural merits, and quite possibly the building will be mentioned in some other local history books - it is just that this won't google up. Yet, the subject, as minor as it is has reasonably reliable sourcing and a degree of enduring importance. Sure, it isn't very significant, but such significance as it has will persevere. Meanwhile anyone who gets 4min of media fame passes the "multiple third party sources" test and gets included. Despite the fact that their fame is passing. Oh, the notion that notability isn't temporary is quite absurd.

geni wrote: There always are going to be edge cases. Discussions of the inclusion business do tend to resolve into people denying that the given case is an edge case. Nothing much we can do there - an eighteenth century church would be much more notable in Idaho than in Ipswich anyway. Don't tell me such a thing in England wouldn't be in Pevsner, though. Charles

geni wrote: Fine in theory, but doesn't actually work. Because the 18th century church, unless it is architecturally unique or historically significant, may well be in print sources, but almost certainly none that anyone can find during the 5 days in afd. Local histories for location y, are not generally held by libraries in place z - even if any afd person bothered to look. Whilst one click on google will provide "multiple third party sources" for Numpty the one-hit-wonder for Kentucky. No, some element of common sense and subjective judgement needs to be used, as much as the afd objectivists hate it. Why on earth delete something, when the source is trustworthy, and the thing obviously has some degree of sustainable significance?