User:Fireplace/draft2

A couple policy questions recently came up in AfD that I'd like to raise here. (Full disclosure: the AfD was contentious. I intentionally waited for its conclusion before raising the issue here to avoid appearances of forum shopping.)

1. Does WP:N apply to every article?
2. Are sources internal to a notable movement/organization sufficiently "independent" to establish notability with respect to subject-matter distinctive of that movement/organization?

These questions have come up in several AfD and merger discussions surrounding religious and philosophical belief systems, and I have seen established editors and admins take positions on both sides. Examples:

• If a religion meets WP:N, does that automatically establish the notability of its pantheon of major deities (absent significant third-party coverage)?
• Are sources published by religious organizations sufficiently "independent" from the subject to satisfy notability of the deities, saints, theories, etc., they discuss, under WP:N?
• If a philosopher or philosophical movement meets WP:N, do their major theories therefore automatically meet WP:N (absent significant third-party coverage)?

My own take is that the framework for religious and philosophical beliefs should mirror the framework at WP:Television episodes -- namely, that each article must meet WP:N, and that "in-universe" sources are insufficient to establish notability. The strongest argument I saw for a different view came from DGG. Is there room for a guideline on this issue, similar to that of WP:Television episodes?