On Nov 23, 2007 11:06 AM, jossi fresco <jossif(a)gmail.com> wrote: The concept of "reliable sources" is of utmost importance. It's important that we have a "reliable sources guideline" page to refer people to. To not have a page on that is not acceptable. Right now, information about sourcing is on WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and other pages. We also have [[Wikipedia:Reliable source examples]]. The reliable sources page is a logical place to summarize these and provide guidance on evaluating sources. Especially for newbies, this makes sense. If someone makes an edit, adding something dubious that sources something not meeting WP:RS, I will revert and say "xx source is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]" or "rv per [[WP:RS|reliable sources guidelines]]" or something to that effect. They probably don't even have to look at the guideline page, as everyone knows what "reliable" means. But, if they want, they can read over the reliable sources guideline page and from there go to the relevant policy pages or the example pages. They usually get it when I mention "reliable sources". This approach to watching pages has worked well for me. Also, having "Wikipedia:Reliable Sources" as the title of the page makes it easy to remember. If the newbie comes back, they are more likely to remember "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" than "Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources". It would be a shame to take this page away. It would not at all be helpful for me. To the contrary. -Aude