Exactly. I was using that to make the point that even by your average inclusionist's standards, this article is unsalvageable without an outside source.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
Actually the 'inclusionist' are usually harping on about deletion of things that are verifiable by several external sources. I have never seen the usual suspect object to something that genuinely cannot be verified externally. Mark
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Publish a book about it. If the society is interesting enough to be of note, sufficient pop culture should arise surrounding it to justify an article.
The incident you mention is indeed original rsearch
- that is why we
need an external source. Original research cannot be verified - that is why we need an external source. The inclusionists harp on it - "But it's VERIFIABLE! We gotta' keep it!" Without a source not from Wikipedia, this is not verifiable at all.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])