[WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields

[Ray Saintonge]

Todd Allen wrote:

>-Primary source only articles tend to irreparably fail NPOV. 
>
This statement is remarkably shallow.  Giving only the first side of the 
story does not imply NPOV.  Amazing as it may seem to some, there is no 
obligation that every concept presented must have a disputable side.  As 
Freud is reputed to have said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

>A band or
>company's own site will and should promote that band or company (why
>else would they have a site?) 
>
Just because a company will and should do this does not in any way lead 
to the logical conclusion that this is an exclusive obligation of their 
web site.  There is still much neutral information on a company's site.  
A list of products that it produces, the members of the board of 
directors, where its offices and branches are located, whether it has 
issued recalls on any of its products, historical data about the 
corporation, stock prices,  ...  There is no reason to believe that any 
of these is necessarily included for the sole purpose of promotion.

>But if that's all that's out there, and
>we mirror that source (and we have to mirror sources, using our own
>interpretations would just shift the problem to NOR instead), we have
>nothing to print but marketing fluff. 
>
Only if the corporate site is exclusively "marketing fluff".

>In that case, better to let
>their website or Myspace promote them, and say nothing at all until
>-someone else-, who's reliable and has no vested interest in promoting
>them, decides to say something about them.
>
IOW if a company has issued a warning that one of its own products is 
dangerous, and nobody else has picked up we should not mention it 
because our rules are more important than protecting the public from risk.

>-Primary source only articles fail V. "If an article topic has no
>reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on
>it."
>
Sometimes.  Julius Caesar may be the only source for some of the 
material in his "Gallic Wars".  Your position implies that he should not 
be used as a reference, and that we should restrict ourselves to the 
misinterpretation of others.

>-Just accepting whatever gets thrown at us fails NOT. We're not a
>directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. Using a bar,
>that -someone else- must have written about it in a decent amount of
>detail before we will, ensures that we stay true to those, and don't
>become an indiscriminate collection of trivia, factoids, or articles
>based on biased, promotional stuff if that's all that's out there on
>the subject.
>
That should depend on the nature of the information, and its entire 
context.  It requires judgement rather than reckless robotism.

Ec