On 6/30/07, Nick Wilkins <nlwilkins(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It wasn't presented as a reliable source for the article (in the sense of
supporting any factual assertions). It, like the list Chris provided
earlier, was presented as a rebuttal to the claim that the media has
completely forgotten about the whole affair. The media clearly hasn't
forgotten about it.
-- Jonel
The media does not forget a lot of things. That does not make them notable
enough to be article worthy. Media will repetively remind us useless
information. Your argument is perfectly fine for wikinews just not for
wikipedia.
- White Cat
On 6/30/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It is incontrovertibly a reliable source for the continuing notability
of the incident.
I do not think thats an accurate assessment. Just because something is
covered, doesn't make it notable. Just as something not covered on media is
not non-notable.
- White Cat