On 5/14/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We work with what our sources have. I have not heard of any articles being
deleted because only one point of view was presented in all the existent
sources. That is sort of like saying we should delete [[Malaysia]] because
we don't have sources to counter the assertion that Malaysia is a federal
state.
Anyone reading this and the encyclopedia get the sense that
sourcing/alternative POV obsessions are starting to reach the [[Adrian
Monk]] level of anal retentivness?
What harm comes from a 1-3 sentence stub about a chalet on a hill in remote
New Zealand? The idea that it's advertising is absurd. If someone is going
to Google Invincible Snowfield or whatever, we're not exactly *helping*
their Google Rank anymore, remember? Hint: nofollow.
Inherently, all things will over time increase in notability. If not today,
tomorrow, or next month, or next year. No harm comes from a
non-controversial stub in the meanwhile. It could be a stub till 2009, or
next week some avid NZ skiier could swoop in with a page of sources and
build it to FA. Or, it could maybe expand to a decent paragraph in time.
Either way, does it honestly HURT anything?
--
Regards,
Joe
http://www.joeszilagyi.com