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