Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
- Are such lookups in SSDI legitimate sourcing for articles, or are
they original research? I incline towards the latter, since there is a leap between getting a name and making the decision that it is the same person that feels like more of one than we should be making without support from a source.
Are such lookups sourcing for articles at all?
If the research that shows that someone is dead is used to determine whether they are subject to BLP, rather than being used to put a statement in the article claiming that the person is dead, it's no different from a Google test or any other sort of meta-test that is used to decide what goes in an article.
The Google test is original research if you put in the article a line "this person is well-known, because I checked Google", but it's not original research if you use the Google test to help determine the notability of the subject when creating an article.
On the other hand, the concept of original research is so stretched that I'm sure someone could find an excuse somewhere for calling this original research anyway.
As long as it is clear that the SSDI refers to the person being considered, I see absolutely no reason to reject SSDI as a proper source for information about the death of a person, and any other information contained there4in.
It's certainly different from a Google test because it is information from an official source. Calling it original research is a tribute to the obsessive POV pushers that have rallied around that concept.
Ec