Wikipedia talk:Notability (natural sciences)

guideline is completely unnecessary.

Well, this guideline is completely unnecessary. WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:N are enough to curb the abusive article creation of natural sciences. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is no need for another guideline. WP:N is sufficient to determine the notability. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Even WP:N is not necessary. Natural science topics are inherently notable, as long as they appear on reliable academic publications, including some dissertations (the identification of reliable sources should be different in different topics, such as Wikipedians can use popular web forums as sources in anime articles to show the reception of a particular work. This is common in Japanese Wikipedia, as the anime project has this requirement) and the completion of a natural science article does not require constituting original research. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

While I think that this proposal predicts possible AfD outcomes fairly well, I don't agree with its spirit: we should avoid (in the spirit of shunning original research) declaring entire classes of topics to be inherently notable. However, for the natural sciences topics covered by this proposed guideline, there is usually enough source material to justify inclusion per WP:N, making this guideline unnecessary. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with all of the above, we don't need separate criteria for every little sub-group of articles. More rules does not equal a better encyclopedia. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

XfD?

Given the consensus above that this a failed proposal, shouldn't we take this to XfD? VG ☎ 18:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My experience at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion is that rejected proposals are generally retained for historical reference (see Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)