It is probably the 'significant coverage' part of the second bit that makes it more subjective. The subjective part of verifiability is whether a source is reliable, while notability has two subjective parts; whether it has verifiable sources AND whether there are enough of those verifiable sources.
The "significant coverage" clause prevents sprawling articles about non-notable subjects based on the technicality that the subject's name once occurred in a regional newspaper article; for instance, by being quoted by a local sports reporter at a softball game.
If you think this is a contrived example, I'd exhort you to spend some quality time on Wikipedia's AfD page watching the debates.
I was not trying to make any judgement calls on whether the 'significant coverage' clause is a good one to have or not... I was merely pointing out to the parent comment why 'notability' is not simply a restatement of 'verifiability', and why someone might think 'notability' is the more subjective of the two.
Obviously, as is the case for any subjective category distinctions, there are examples so extreme that everyone can agree which category they belong in. That does not change the level of subjectivity there is.
> The "significant coverage" clause prevents sprawling articles about non-notable subjects based on the technicality that the subject's name once occurred in a regional newspaper article; for instance, by being quoted by a local sports reporter at a softball game.
Why not just cut any material that's not actually verifiable?
That's basically what they do. When you're done cutting out the non-verifiable stuff in those articles, you're left with an article that says "Bob Flendersonhaver was probably the name of a person who once stood beside a softball field outside Cedar Rapids, Iowa".
