I don't think we should be sympathetic to this argument about notability. Notability requirements exist for good reason. Consider two things:
First, the notability requirements and the reliable sources requirements go hand in hand. If someone has reliable sources on them, they are notable. If not, they are not. The only way to effectively remove the notability requirements is to remove the reliable sources requirements. But Wikipedia is founded on the idea of reliable sources: They don't care about blog posts or tweets. They only care about news and scientific publications. This is a good thing. For one: It prevents pseudoscience & other quack ideas. For two: It prevents people from advertising themselves or their product via their own sources. For three: It ensures greater neutrality. For four: It prevents lawsuits.
Second, it will never, ever, ever change. Wikipedians with power and Wikipedia policy are, I'm sure, virtually unanimous in favor of maintaining the reliable sources and notability guidelines.
- Since you and I agree that your essay isn't related, I've taken the liberty to remove it, when I was updating the article.Wikibalance (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
An additional concern
Dear RationalWiki, it's Irrational to suggest that I'm a Closeted Conservative.
Recently, a new article about me appeared on RationalWiki. In my opinion, it paints a picture of me as some kind of closeted conservative. Maybe I'm just oversensitive, but I don't really consider myself a sensitive person. Anyway, I have to protect my reputation, so here's a rebuttal. I know that this is probably just the work of individual contributor(s), so I'm not saying the site as a whole is bad. But I still have to make my case, that I'm not a closeted conservative. So here it is.
The case against me apparently starts with how I don't think like other feminists:
"She has sung praises of the historical achievements of the liberal feminist movement, and has also defended modern choice feminism as a continuation of the liberal feminist tradition, against the views of other feminist writers. She also believes that liberal feminism is better suited to deal with the demands of intersectional feminism than radical feminism, a position that is at odds with the views of most intersectional feminists."
I do accept that I often don't agree with the feminist establishment. However, not agreeing with them doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong, stupid, or a crank. The majority is not always right, after all.
And then there's the bit about how I defend Ivanka Trump, just like the conservatives. Well, most American progressives are opposed to anarcho-communism just like American conservatives. Does this mean they are the same? The lesson is, one similar action does not mean similar ideology.
Next comes the attack on my views of intersectional feminism:
"It actually appears that TaraElla is mostly concerned with feminism's tendency to exclude conservative women and conservative viewpoints, something conservatives have been agitating about well before the advent of intersectional feminism. She has in effect dressed this age-old conservative complaint up by referencing socially conservative ethnic minorities and LGBT people, making it look somewhat related to intersectionality."
Now, I am sympathetic to those conservative women who have been excluded from feminism. But it's not because I'm particularly pro-conservative. It's just that nobody should be excluded. Remember, I hate TERFs for the same reason too.
The fact is, I am a committed liberal. Still don't believe me? Let's look at these facts:
1) I have strongly supported marriage equality since 2003. 2) I have a strong interest in diversity and inclusion in Hollywood. 3) I am opposed to Donald Trump, George Bush Jr, Tony Abbott, and many other conservative politicians. 4) I have never been a fan of Margaret Thatcher either. 5) I don't support the goverment taking liberties away from people in the name of morality. This should be clear from my work.
Do I still look like a closeted conservative to you?
Since removing my 2017 post was not allowed, I will add this note of clarification: my views on 'conservative' have changed since then, and I don't necessarily see 'conservative' the same way now. But I stand by my comments that the article painted me in an unfair light. TaraElla (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)