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(a)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]])
>
>