On May 14, 2007, at 11:35 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
But that aside, it should still be deleted.
There's a good reason to
require a significant amount of independent sourcing. First-party
sources may be biased, promotional, inaccurate, incomplete,
technically
correct but deliberately misleading, or any combination of the above.
Good secondary sources check for those things, cross-check one
another,
aren't interested in promoting the subject, and look for non-obvious
details. When we've got quite a few reliable, secondary sources on
something, we can be pretty sure we've got a good, complete picture of
it. And that's how we build neutral, verifiable articles without using
original research.
But the standard for inclusion of information is not multiple
independent sources. It's a single reliable source. What is different
about including this material on an overall list of ski fields in New
Zealand and including it in its own article?
-Phil