*Notability is not needed as long as the [[wikipedia:verifiability|verifiability]] rules are strictly applied. There is a level of ease with which facts can be checked that must be maintained in order to be verifiable in a practical sense: theoretical verifiability isn't enough. A garage band in Seattle may consist of Mike, Jeff, Scott and Mike, and that may theoretically be verifiable (if one traveled to Seattle); but that's not enough. One needs to be able to look it up in a book or on the Web. And not just any source: blogs, zines, e-zines, stuff you printed up, self-recorded CDs, and other "vanity media" don't count as "sources." And a single source isn't really enough. No context or comparison is possible with a single source. The standard could apply to things which are public record (after all, many people have [[birth certificate]]s, but that doesn't make us notable) or are mentioned once or twice in public works. Notable subjects will provide a choice of sources—even if only one is cited to begin with, future editors have the opportunity to counter, compare and revise according to information in other sources. Without this choice of sources, this isn't possible.
*Some Wikipedians feel that the term "notability" has acquired a bad reputation on Wikipedia because it is often used as a proxy for "I haven't heard of it" or "I don't think it's an interesting subject."
[[Category:Wikipedia proportion and emphasis|Notability]]▼