The notability guideline states:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

Therefore, meriting an article has two necessary conditions, or prongs: the general notability prong and the non-exclusion prong. Meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines is not sufficient for a topic to merit an article: the topic must also not be excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Similarly, not being excluded by the What Wikipedia is not policy does not mean that the topic merits an article: the topic must also meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.

In deletion discussions, editors often cite only one prong of merit, but rarely both. For example, for topics recently in the news, typical !votes might read:

• Keep. The topic is getting a lot of coverage in worldwide newspapers, clearly meeting WP:GNG. Incredulitiousness (talk), 01:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This article is outside the scope of Wikipedia. BetterWithAge (talk), 01:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to read consensus when some editors only cite one prong and other editors only cite the other prong, because the editors are merely talking across each other by addressing different aspects of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you are contributing to a deletion discussion in which editors with opposing !votes cite notability and WP:NOT, read what editors that disagree with your !vote say. Are their concerns about the topic's notability (the general notability prong) or Wikipedia's scope (the non-exclusion prong)? Try to address the same prong.

Here are more helpful !votes addressing both prongs of merit:

• Keep. The topic is getting a lot of coverage in worldwide newspapers, clearly meeting WP:GNG. It is too early to assess whether this will be news or not (WP:RAPID), so for now, do not delete under WP:NOTNEWS. Incredulitiousness (talk), 01:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Also, notability requires sustained coverage, which this event is unlikely to have. BetterWithAge (talk), 01:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, when participating in relevant deletion discussions, consider addressing both WP:GNG (or a specific notability guideline) and WP:NOT, not just one of the two prongs of merit.