User blog comment:PsiCubed2/Notability Guidelines for the mainspace: looking for your input/@comment-4224897-20180429202917

This is a really interesting question!

Here's my stance on this:

If a notation has a smallish amount of googolisms created for it (let's say the total amount of Bowers' BEAF numbers is a rough upper bound), then all of them are notable enough for articles. Helps if the numbers are varied like Bowers' numbers are, rather than a huge set of extensions upon a small set of names.

Otherwise, the googolisms that the author says something meaningful about or creates a lot of googolisms based on are the only ones that warrant articles. Think roughly in the terms of the googolisms that are names of Sbiis's regiments and the few landmarks within those regiments.

Regardless of how the number came to be, there is one part that I really, REALLY dislike in articles: when they literally just say "[number] is equal to [value]" with a source, nothing else. I'd say the bare minimum should be which notation and/or naming system caused the number to come about and who coined it (unless it's an obvious application of an affix to a number, in which nobody should be credited for coining it unless it was coined by the creator of that affix).

I still can't thank you enough for seriously maintaining this wiki; I never thought I'd see the day it finally has actual notability guidelines. I'd be damned if I ever had the right motivation to do stuff like this.