Now comes the grotty quibbling over what "third
party", "reliable" and
"article topic" mean, I guess. And whether the great purge to come will
give editors time to fix anything before it's swept aside.
Time? Why should you be creating new stubs that are unsourced at all? I
don't create an article unless I have source material available. It kills
the need for debate 90% of the time (literally, that's my ratio of creations
to AFDs).
On Feb 1, 2008 4:04 PM, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Despite a
number of objections, consensus seems to be forming on WP:V
to include the line "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found
for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." in
the policy. This line may be familiar in its more-cited form, "A topic
is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in
reliable sources that are independent of the subject," from WP:N.
It's notable (no pun intended, not that anyone will believe me) that
the former does not include the word "significant" while the latter
does. That would make WP:V require a weaker form of notability than
WP:N. It's not a simple case of WP:N being included into WP:V.
There is that one ray of hope, at least. Find just one third-party
source and the topic avoids WP:V.
Now comes the grotty quibbling over what "third party", "reliable"
and
"article topic" mean, I guess. And whether the great purge to come will
give editors time to fix anything before it's swept aside.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l