On Feb 3, 2008 10:09 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/02/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Feb 3, 2008 8:28 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
No one's going to challenge an article that cites a lot of sources, not even if it's a stub.
That statement is demonstrably false.
Replace "sources" with "reliable, non-trivial, independent sources", and it's pretty much true.
Is it? [[Daniel Brandt]] immediately to mind. But then I looked at AFD, because Brandt's article is obviously a nonstandard case. [[January 2008 stock market volatility]] was the first article I looked at. 30 sources. Browsing up the list I also saw [[POLICEPAY]] and [[Usher's fifth studio album]], and I didn't look at all that many. But I guess it depends how you want to interpret "reliable" and "non-trivial". If you take a narrow enough view of that, then I guess the chances of having someone "challenge" such an article go down (but still not to zero). But then again, if you take a narrow enough view of that, then sourcing an article well enough to please everyone becomes a very tedious task for a great number of articles. Hit random page 5 or 10 times and see if you can come up with impeccable sources for all of the articles, or if not if you can say with a straight face that they should be deleted.